Sunday Night

Sometimes, the Big City has its benefits. Dinner and a movie on Sunday Night? Plenty of options, though the choice was a bit lackluster. Still, other choices could have been made, and will next time. Anyway, following apparently in the spirit of movie concession stands, another restaurant had the expensive dessert option. The entree, Moroccan btw, was $15 -- reasonable portion and so forth (vegetarian, which has the added value of being a bit cheaper) -- while a slice of cake is around $6 or more. In fact, my cocktail (another place to gouge ya) was cheaper than my dessert. This is not quite as bad as the "give them coffee and wait five/ten minutes to give them dessert" move (even though they were fairly busy, service was quick there ... so the coffee first was not too bad). I had my usual tirasmu (Mediterranean region standard) and it was decent enough. Still ...

The movie was Mrs. Henderson Presents, which concerns Judi Dench (nominated for an Oscar) as a widow opening up theater in the late 1930s, and deciding to include nudity. It first appears to be a way to get business, after it was going slow, but we eventually learn (during WWII) there is some emotional reason behind it as well. Eh ... didn't quite work for me. It was a bit too predictable and thin for me with a couple "more serious than the movie deserves" moments, one in particularly almost seemed a bit crude to me.

Oh, I did see a preview of a 9/11 movie (actually, I think it was the A&E movie, unless I missed the mention of it being an Oliver Stone film ... don't trust him with it, btw). And, right afterwards, we lead to a silly concession stand commercial. Better to put the movie earlier in the previews, perhaps? I also refer to a serious Related episode where they insisted to put previews of some stupid reality show in the crawl near the end ... while serious stuff is going on with the music and everything. Grrr. The A&E film received good reviews. I did not see it yet. Meanwhile, there continues to be great debate over construction of a memorial -- of course actually doing anything else four years after is too much to ask for -- which is due to begin soon. Those meetings are bound to be totally depressing. Kind of when I used to pass funerals on a daily basis.

The movie was over about 10, but surely this does not mean everything is closed. No ... we could have gone out to eat at the same place after the movie. Duane Reade was open 24 hours. Foodtown, with plenty of goodies, was open for me to pick up some odds and ends -- microwavable potatoes, good selection of soups, etc. But, things weren't only like that in the CITY ... when I came back to the boondocks (aka the home of the NY Yankees), I passed two corner stores still open (could have got a coffee, but they usually aren't a great idea at midnight) and Dunkin Donuts (they are spreading like Starbucks in these parts) as well (ditto).

I taped West Wing. Like in '04, it would be nice when the election is over. I was thinking back and realized that except for vice presidents, twelve years of the same party (especially eight years plus a new guy) is a rarity in this country. The last time it happened was in the '20s, and that was sort of a special case (Harding died, so we did not have eight years of the same guy) as was McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft (same situation). The other two times was after the Civil War (Grant/Hayes) and the early 1800s (but there was that secretary of state connection). So, I'm thinking Vinick is going to win. But, now there is this invasion, so the whole thing is cheapened since the winner will be stuck with the muck. Still, Donna and Josh kissed and all ... okay episode. It is a good time for the show to finish its run.

Before going to bed, I caught the end of the re-broadcast of the Korea/Mexico World Baseball Championship game. Korea is a bit of a surprise -- beating favored Japan (Ichiro had some trash talking ... sorry loser ... U.S. also beat them in the Ninth on Sunday -- A-Rod had the clutch hit the Yanks needed last October) and now Mexico 2-1. Netherlands, of all people, earlier had a no-hitter (helped by the mercy rule, but impressive for a 19 year old). I think it is turning out to be a pretty good idea. Now, if that ass Bonds would retire...

New Party, No Reform (Some Shame)

And Also: Another panel this weekend concerned Catholics in public life, which Republicans seem to suggest cannot really include Democrats. The presence of James "the human puppet" Carville on the panel suggests otherwise. Peggy Noonan was on the panel -- yuck. Also, it was mentioned that abortion was on its way to be legalized when Roe was handed down. This is at best misleading -- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in fact had to overturn a veto attempt in NY, meaning only California and a couple other states had truly liberal laws. A chunk of the country probably still would not have had Roe type abortion freedoms even a decade later.

Norman Mailer was on Book TV this week with his youngest son (nine children ... who knew?) promoting their new book which apparently involves them discussing various issues. NM made a sound point respecting why invading Iraq even to "promote democracy" was a bad idea, one that basically reflects my bottom lime position. [The war was a mess for any number of reasons, but I was against it on principle as well as pragmatics.] Iraq had to find democracy on its own ... after years of "shame" ... not be given it by "some rich uncle they see twice a year."

I compare it to our own situation, and have not really heard a sound rebuttal (or even many willing to face the idea ... the underlining sentiment seems to be that they are somehow "different" from us), before the Civil War. If Britian invaded us to end slavery, which a majority of the country thought was on some level an evil, and clearly violated the rights of millions ... would we have agreed to it? In fact, look at the Reconstruction: a half-ass attempt to protect the civil rights of blacks that we grew tired of in less than a decade, and resulted in lots of trouble in the long run.

Surely, on some level, it was a good thing. But, freedom alone was not enough. Anyway, we had to fight our own civil war, and our own demons. Others did not come in and do it for us.

Meanwhile, though NO pops up on the Al Franken Show weekly, he is no liberal. Still, he knows -- along with others of his sort -- that the system is broken. And, the Republicans only made things worse:

While I am familiar with the prior work of Mann and Ornstein, which is always distinguished by its excellence, all that I know about their new book, to be published in June 2006, is the pre-publication description. According to the publisher (Oxford Press), this latest work reveals that after forty years of Democratic control, the House of Representatives was in need of reform. But that did not happen.

Republicans promised reform in 1994, when they won control of the House for the first time in four decades. But rather than deliver it, GOP leadership has - according to Mann and Ornstein - undermined the institution through "the demise of regular order, the decline of deliberation and the weakening of our system of checks and balances."

Speaker Dennis Hastert is described in the pre-publication material, based on his own words, as more of "a lieutenant of the president than a steward of the House." Accordingly, Mann and Ornstein's book suggests, "the legislative process has been bent to serve immediate presidential interests and have often resulted in poorly crafted and stealthily passed laws."

I truly think we need a change of party control of at least one part of our national government for real change to occur. Nonetheless, it is not impossible for there to be respectable Republicans out there that realize party is not all that matters. Unfortunately, and damn the principled loyalists who stick with Bush anyway as if the alternative is hell on Earth, they have not stood up to be heard when it counted. Sen. McCain, for instance, does not deserve to win in '08, even if you respect his conservative views (principle only goes so far -- I would not have voted for him in '00, but would have been less distressed if he actually won). He has shown his lapdog side too often by this point.

But, if change does come, perhaps the principled sorts can come out of their holes. Who knows? Many claim that many of them are "ashamed" too, but just do not have the guts to risk their positions. For now, the system is broken -- it is not just progressive Joe (fill in appropriate label) talking here -- and new blood is needed. I don't see any compelling evidence that this will include too many with "Rs" next to their names, so this means voting Democratic ... though they leave something to be desired at times too (I must give props to Sen. Reid -- at various times he has shown a good bulldog tendency).

Anyway, that book sounds good. I also managed to pick up the anti-Wal-Mart documentary at the library (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) -- pretty good with the added benefit of having a quickie twenty minute version on the DVD as well. Also, some amusing takeoffs of their advertising. I love the use of the term "associate" -- it's like Zonker being the "vice president" at his theme restaurant in Doonesbury.

Port Deal Update

And Also: I again enjoyed Mostly Martha, a well done German addition to the food movie genre, this time involving a chef thawing after she takes in her niece after tragedy strikes. Not great art, but just well done, all around. Meanwhile, I'm reading Lawless World by Philippe Sands, a defense of global rules and international law with proper realistic touches tossed in. This is not just a matter of the ICC and should be a fundamental plank of a sane foreign policy. In fact, the U.S. used to actually agree. They used to have a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Ah, decency.

Small victories are what one hangs their hat on sometimes.

I was trying to obtain information the last few days about something from my county clerk. There was only one number given in the phone book, one that matched the one given by the "411" information line. The number given rang off the hook. These people apparently never heard of automated messages. Two days in a row. Called the "311" city information number -- first time I used this service -- and was given an alternate number. Same result.

I called again. I was given the NY State number. The number went through but at 11:45 the actual humans all go on a break for around an hour or so. I got through at 11:47. I called 311 a third time later in the day ... this time I got through to an actual person. At first, the person said she could not really help me -- call the county clerk. She talks to someone else, and I hear the person say "not our problem" (how nice), but eventually the other person does tell me the information I needed to know. I made it sure it was damn clear, annoying the person, but this is like the second time in a week I had to deal with shit like this, so I was in less polite mode.*

This is the sort of thing you laugh at (1) when it happens to someone else (2) after it is over or (3) you don't want to cry. I think I'm somewhat only the lines of the last two. Anyway, this should not have happened, but small victory. The ports deal is one as well since it forced Republicans to actually disagree with the President in a substantive way. How much is unclear -- (1) you get the idea this was planned, so they could have something to say for the '06 elections (2) who knows if shifting the operations to a U.S. company really means it is truly independent.

But, still, it shows that checks and balances, separation of powers, and public pressure all have some sign of life yet. I do wonder ... who designated Sen. Warner as the spokesman of Dubai? Again, he was out there serving as their press secretary, reading the release discussing the move, after the House committee voted 62-2 to reject the deal as current designed.

This is a bit more damning, by the House yet, than the recent Senate Intel agreement respecting the criminal eavesdropping program, for which they gave the President more power. In return, they will be "advised" about things, though perhaps it would be more helpful to actually investigate beforehand. Sen. Specter got annoyed at the NYT for calling the "kabuki" theater, but tellingly noted in his letter that the administration didn't tell him what he wanted to know. If you actually gave a shit Arlen, you would have demanded them to do so before delegating the problem to the usually subservient FISA Court. Crime does pay.

To emphasize my main concern with this whole deal: it was not really the actual deal. It was the sloppy way a surely not surprisingly controversial move was handled. Let's say that it was not really a threat to security and even was somewhat tinged with racism. For the sake of argument. So what? That is how things will be in reality sometimes, especially in these times, helped by fear mongering by you know who. So, the idea is to play it right, handle it with some finesse. This underlines the fundamental problem with these jokers -- they do not handle that very well. If they were in that Little House in the Prairie episode where Charles has to deliver the nitro, they would have blown things up early in the episode. This as much as their basic policy views is the problem, though some clueless sorts seem to miss the point. Surely, this is underlined in any number of cases, though the ass covering was much less successful in this case.

Anyway, I talked about this to a loyal reader, but I want to end by underlining my position on the impeachment deal. John Dean, who has been doing yeoman work on this in his writings (including Findlaw columns and a book) and media appearances, is right to say that impeachment is not a great '06 campaign message. Oversight is. And, I think that should be a major theme, along with a basic message of what the Democratic Party stands for. Oversight is what Congress stands for. It should be non-partisan, but sadly is not these days. But, the other half -- the Democratic part -- has to be joined with it this Fall.

But, my concern is not just with members of Congress -- in fact, a few are demanding more investigation on the relevant subjects here. The problem I have is that there is nearly no mention at all of the idea that impeachment might be a quite credible result (you know, in ideal world, where lying into war will not get you re-elected), especially if real investigation and changes are not put in place. A "third party" movement came to mind as a credible metaphor here -- not barn burners like Nader, but real ones, including the likes of Perot (and more sane ones, like the progressives).

They rarely win, though the likes of the Greens should do more to target local races, but they do influence the debate. The same applies to editorials and others in the media. They help to move the goalposts. So, I was a bit pissed at an editorial sent to me that did more than say politically impeachment is a no go. Sure ... that's true, surely now. It went one step further and suggested really Bush did not really do anything impeachable. This is ridiculous. Prosecutorial discretion is not the same thing as no crime ... and we are not just talking about Britain not targeting certain protestors as possible violators of their new (dubious) hate/promotion of violence laws. Lying us into war is not impeachable? If you look at the debates, this is THE impeachable offense.

But, even the likes of Molly Ivins do more than say impeachment is not a good idea as a Democratic strategy. She goes to the next level and suggests even discussion of it by certain activists is a bad idea. Clinton is raised. Oh shut up. Oversight and independent counsels were abused there too -- millions were wasted to investigate one aide because he gave some hush money to his mistress. Does this mean Patrick Fitzgerald is Javert? I see nothing wrong with some activists making the case for impeachment and some -- you know, other than the Nation -- editorialists talking a bit about it too (even a wee bit). Keep things in perspective, but sure. Medicinal marijuana is not a great issue for '06, but at times it seems less taboo.

Anyway, that's really where I'm coming from, inartfully put or not. I'd add that there should be a place for "alternate universes," a discussion point of what should be done, even if it cannot be right now. This too is where some sort of impeachment talk makes sense. If South Africa can have truth commissions that serve as an alternative to prosecutions for rank deprivations of human rights, surely impeachment proceedings are not the only way to go. But, such commissions underline the rights were violated. That too is part of my point -- "concern" and other play acting is not quite what is satisfying at this point.

---

* Partly since I was there, so to speak, I respect the position of the low level sorts involved in this situation. After all, I remain in the support business. So, I did note that I was trying to be crystal clear (especially on a not perfect line) because I was given the run around. But, quid pro quo is warranted -- some minimum level of respect is a bit too often not shown by both sides. Thus, to take a trivial example, I choose take out places in part based on customer service skills.

Intellectual Exercises

The issue of abortion has interested me for some time because of its aspects, which touch upon so many fundamental issues. It is in other words partly an "intellectual exercise," but it is surely not only that. This is the case because fundamental issues tend to affect people personally as well. For instance, I do not have children, but those close to me do. Thus, the matter is far from abstract. The loved one of a homosexual might not be gay, but anti-homosexual activity hits close to home. Putting aside closely related issues -- like the general right to choose whom to date, form a relationship with and marry -- that are but a few inches away and overlap, the matter is personal for them. And, it suggests why the issue does not only touch the few percentage of people who are homosexual/bi-sexual.

Such is it for me and millions others on this issue. This is a rather mundane thing to say, but it bears mentioning, since certain people [see this thread] consider their own experiences somehow unique ... they "know" something we do not, since they "get it" in a personal way. Of course, millions others who have children (or even lost them) take different lessons from their life experiences. Just as some who have similar experiences as me have different beliefs. But, abortion is not totally a rationale issue -- it is deeply personal. So, some degree of blindness is understandable.

Still, it is a bit annoying, which is why the discussing the subject with others tends to get somewhat tiring. Such is the perils of moral questions as well as political ones. Still, I really do want to understand, as best I can, the mind-set of others. For instance, are they serious when they claim that newborns and six month fetuses are morally the same? Do they really think the pro-choice community as a whole (to the degree simple judgments can be made for such a diverse group) do not respect in some way the moral importance of a six month fetus, thinking it simply a "bundle of fluff?" On the other hand, do people who try (in a heavy-handed fashion) to make it all about "GOVERNMENT" vs. personal rights really think it is THAT simple?

I wish not to dwell to deeply on my private experience and so forth, partly because I respect my privacy. They also only are somewhat relevant in issues like these, since they can equally warrant respect and suspicion. It strikes me when people on message boards and so forth forthrightly speak about their private experiences ... it really opens them up to some hardship, since message boards are not always the most humane of areas. Also, you somewhat raise risks of concerns of bias. We all are biased, of course, so this might just make things more honest and upfront. Still, again, spelling out my personal experiences will also raise that problem.

But, on some level, we again reach the conclusion that we are all interconnected in major ways. For instance, a relative is a very religious sort, but is not totally stereotypical -- she's divorced, doesn't think pre-marital sex will damn you to hell, is generally a nice person, and so forth. Yes, she did vote for Bush, but she's sorry about it now. Repentance is important in the Christian faith. Anyway, this doesn't make me that special, does it? Who is not in some way close to people with different religious or moral views? It is why we can and must respect them. And, it helps the average American to have nuanced views on most important issues of the day. Message boards tend to bring out knee jerks, but even there, you sort of see this shine thru.

So, one still can be optimistic, even with all the b.s. out there. Going back to that Adams vs. Jefferson book, one thing that struck people about Jefferson was his optimism in the people.* The Jeffersonian ideal was his ultimate legacy, the idea the people will rule, not hated elites. It was striking when the book provided some campaign literature, which at some point summarized the Republican position as compared to the Federalist ... things like religious freedom vs. mixing church and state ... since it sounded like a denunciation of the current Republican Party. We need another standard bearer, an imperfect sort who can voice the ideals of this nation. Make us believe in ourselves again. John Edwards wants to be that person, but whomever it is, the people are desperate to find him or her. No, not her.

---

* Jefferson is surely an imperfect sort ... he also, somewhat despite himself, was a great politician. TJ had the ability to voice basic ideals, seeing things in black and white, while not being comfortable with shades of gray. He hated conflict, so avoided such difficulties, including in his later letters to Adams. This also led to hypocrisy. One other thing. It is ironic that Madison perhaps was the first "party leader" in Congress, he of the anti-party sentiments. But, really, they are fighting a special menace. Yeah, we buy that Jimmy.

Religion and Humanity

And also: Evangelists are not an impossible resource for the Democrats. Amazing how little is widely known about the Bush Family. For instance, it is hard to believe how so few know about Laura accidentally killing someone while a teenager! Also, putting aside black sheep Neil, who knows the names of Bush Sr.'s other two children -- Marvin and Dorothy, the latter divorced and married to a former aide to Richard Gephardt! Finally, how about the fact that the second oldest child died at about age four of leukemia? A small telling point about how they control information.

In response to a Slate article that takes a doubtful look at those who connection religious belief with our very natures, I offer some rambling comments. ....

Is it really true that no non-human, even higher primates, have some sort of "religious" component to their existence, including things like respecting the dead or the like? I'm not sure if that's true, but that's not my field, so maybe others know.

To the degree it is true, it seems connected to our higher brain capacity, our ability to understand (and need to understand) more abstract questions and concerns. A greater knowledge surely factors into concerns over such things as suffering and its reasons or such. And, rituals would form to deal with such questions, rituals tied to most religions.

For instance, Catholicism centers on sacraments growing from various stages of our life. They stages give rise to rituals and ceremonies honoring them. Thus, things like birth, marriage, and death have a "sacred" character. Again, does this not arise from our greater brain development and so forth?

And also, does no other animal have some primitive "proto-rituals?" I think so, since some primates clearly have broad emotional lives and understandings. This might not raise to the level of a "God," of course, unless for those "masters" who have heightened opinion of themselves vis-a-vis their pets. But, Catholics surely think God in some way touches the lives of animals. Again, it is their lack of knowledge that leads them to fail to fully be aware of it.

For those who do not accept the traditional concept of God, this "understanding" is reached in some other way. Such individuals see some sort of natural laws and moral policies arising from them, and in some fashion create a "religion" to better practice things. The problems with definitions shouldn't let us ignore such a reality.

A reality that again is an imperative in some fashion for everyday man and woman to pursue happiness and contentment. It is clearly somehow tied into our beings, our natures, by evolution and so forth.

South Dakota Acts Stupid

Rumsfeld v. FAIR: Avoiding more divisive issues in dubious ways, the SC upheld the requirement of law schools to accept military recruiters in return for funding. Some want to throw the baby out with the bath water (let's only protect associations that are "good"), but yes there are some speech and associational interests here. But, the funding, minimal harm, desire to actually limit speech (another way of life and all that entails), and the military's interest in recruiting in places wherein we need them to do so suggests the policy was not unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, South Dakota's Orwellian "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act" was signed into law. Following in the footsteps of a slanted and dubious panel, they only will now allow abortions to be performed by doctors (or medicines that do the job) if the woman's life is at stake or the pregnancy itself cannot be determined.

Thus, yes, even if the women's health was significantly at risk (even at a few percentage points, this would affect thousands of women), no abortion. Well, okay, if it was self-induced. This rule of not applying restrictive laws to women themselves is traditional and arguably legitimate to the degree it is hard to target women alone without having proof problems and probably Fourth Amendment issues. It does look bad, doesn't it?

The law also alters the state constitution's due process clause to allow this move. Of course, this leaves the federal Constitution, which even Chief Justice Roberts might think does not allow disallowing abortions to protect a woman's health. Thus, this seems a step too far. If these people were serious, they would have used some old law that had an exception for the woman's health (more limited than the current acception), or (you know, if they wanted to be really crazy) in cases of rape/incest, or severe fetal deformity. Well, yeah, that would be not even worth mentioning since it would only bar something like 90% or so of abortions. Who knew South Dakota, who used to have two Democratic senators not too long ago, was this backward?

The law refers to these findings:

based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited

The fact that some sort of "life" begins at conception was known when Roe v. Wade was handed down. The rub was what one would do with this fact, namely, if the rights of personhood was also supplied along with all that suggests. Also, I am not aware that "each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization" is really news either. Actually, in many cases, this "human being" is naturally disposed of by the human body by miscarriage. Or, is split into two or more "unique" multiple pregnancies. The word "unique" does imply "unique individual," which is simply not in place this early.

Some have referred to in vitro fertilization, but besides the fact that this was probably known about in theory in 1973, what does this change? All that did was apply the already used artificial conception method (in animal husbandry) to humans, changing the locale of fertilization. The bottom line in Roe was that a woman had a right to privacy and there was no way simply to remove theembryoo ... the fetus not being able to survive until viability, which has changed by a few weeks since '73.

Some studies have suggested ... while others did not ... that pain and so forth might be felt by the unborn earlier than we thought. But, at two weeks? Also, an absolute ban would not be necessarily required, especially given we do not force good samaritanship in other contexts. And, some sort of use of pain relievers to I guess knock out the embryo before performing the abortion. Surely, this is possible, if the alternative is no abortion.

The "health" part is particularly outrageous, since there is no health exception in the law. Some point tocertainn emotional problems some women have after an abortion (the breast cancer tie has been shown to be dubious). This proves too much, since the same applies for forced childbirth. The compelling need to secure a woman's "natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child" also does not seem to require forcing them to bring said "child" to term, even if said "relationship" would cause her health and other problems, or be severely problematic if it happened at a particular point in time.

Again, the best way to protect the alleged state interests would be a reasonable family planning regime plus an improved social welfare system. This is a lot easier, I guess. OTOH, some more realistic pro-life sorts also aren't so glad about this law.

Meanwhile, more Saletan bashing. Always fun.

2006 and 1800

And Also: Understanding the problem with moderates raising the issue and the fact it will not happen even if Democrats win in '06, I do wonder if impeachment is obsolete. People like Tom Daschle and Molly Ivins both oppose it, even given all the facts supplied. It is not just a matter of success; it is that it seems verboten to bring it up. Bush is like sooo rude and nasty, but hey, we can't go too far, can we? If not, stop calling him a criminal who lied us into war. There is something for people like that and it is not lame ass FISA reforms or even loss of his party in the next election cycle.

Academy Awards: Partly since I don't like Jon Stewart, I did not watch them this year, but apparently this was no great loss. As to the awards themselves, the only real surprise was that Crash won over Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture. Crash was a racial message movie with a lot of emoting by various stars, including Matt Dillon and Sandra Bullock, who it's always nice to know can get real work. It was Paul Haggis' baby, he of Million Dollar Baby fame, and sounds like a perfect Hollywood choice: right message, lots of acting. He also won Best Original Screenplay. It sounds like tiring tripe to me and received mixed reviews on that level as well, though there was some talk that it had a shot.

One movie that lost out was Good Night, and Good Luck, though George Clooney won for Syriana. Not surprisingly, but somewhat disappointedly, the cute man and dog couple from England won over The Corpse Bride for Best Animated Film, especially since Wallace and Gromit already won in the past. Memoirs of a Geisha and King Kong won three techs a piece (art/editing/makeup and sound/visual). "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" won Best Song, while Tsotsi, an African redemption story (apparently with a great soundtrack) won Best Foreign. Overall, standard fare, with various tiring filler and music even during the acceptance speeches -- that is, usually the best part of the ceremony (there is always a couple nice remarks, sometimes among the lesser known awards). Jon Stewart received mixed reviews.

Adams vs. Jefferson: I am listing to this book on CD. It is sort of force advertising, since it at first glance is about the disputed election of 1800, but is really about the first twenty or so years of our nation's history. It does focus on these two guys, but it basically supplies a rather straightforward (boring) summary of events from c. 1780 on. Thus, I am on Disc 7 of 10 and we have yet to reach the actual election of 1800! It is acceptable as a basic summary of events and read well, but one expects more. There also is not enough context at times -- we hear what certain people thought, but the author does not comment if they were right to do so.

One thing that it does underline is that we should not idolize our fathers THAT much. These people have serious faults and problems as much as the rest of us. The fact that things were basically started from scratch suggests they had more places to shine, but really, look at these guys. First, there is the whole slavery and class inequality deal ... it is not ahistorical to note this, even if it is just to remind ourselves these are not demi-gods (as Franklin notes in 1776). Second, there was more than enough of the usual graft and chicanery, including a crooked Georgia land deal that basically affected the whole legislature (the people kicked them out, so maybe we should honor them too).

Third, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and the rest all had their less than prime moments, down to the infamous duel. But, what about Madison counseling Jefferson not to send a conciliatory letter to Adams after the election of 1796, since it might cause problems come the next election cycle? TJ definitely is an imperfect character. And, Adams let Hamilton's lackeys walk all over him for over half his term, while distrusting democratic republicanism a bit too much at times. He does at times come off as the most likeable of the bunch, if someone who spent more time at home than Bush does.

[One amusing tidbit: while the capital was in Pennsylvania, the President had to pay rent.]

Interesting Gun Case

And Also: BTC News has second thoughts on John Dickerson respecting a particular issue; but overall, it's a limited retraction. Still wanker material. More on the Texas re-districting case. A bit on the below case from a local.

In this case, Mr. Posey was arrested [The amount of marijuana in his and his friend's possession was less than 1/2 ounce.] in his own home. When asked, after his arrest, if he had any weapons, he told the officers there was a pistol in the back room. From his record, it appears Mr. Posey is an addict. Thus, he was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary, probated, however, on the condition that he serve six-months in the Jefferson County Jail with work release and otherwise comply with other conditions established by the court to keep him clean from drugs and law abiding. Background information indicated he had served his country well in the military, receiving an honorable discharge. He was a high school graduate and had had steady employment throughout the years. Yet, because he had a weapon in his house - though in another room - he was charged with another felony crime.

The state ruling cited here is an interesting discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. The ruling makes an exception for convicted felons, which the dissent (who makes his pro-gun beliefs well known) opposes as too broad. And, he has a point given the term "felony" these days amounts to any number of non-violent crimes often of a trivial nature, putting aside your views on its use when marijuana is involved.

Also, the ruling references Supreme Court precedent that makes it harder to enter a home without a warrant, even to prevent the destruction of evidence ... but criminal activity would often make a difference, esp. felonies.* Felonies also can lead to loss of voting rights, right to own a gun, obtain a license to various occupations, etc. Perils of the drug war, overcriminalized, and so forth.

As Justice White once noted, in reference to discussion of an Indian Rights law:

She complained that "[t]he people get governors and sometimes they get power hungry and then the people have no rights at all," to which Senator Ervin responded: " 'Power hungry' is a pretty good shorthand statement to show why the people of the United States drew up a Constitution. They wanted to compel their rulers to stay within the bounds of that Constitution and not let that hunger for power carry them outside it."

State or federal Constitution, that is.
---

* The original rule, and the defendant tried to rely on it, suggested that felonies would be required before warrantless invasions of the home would be allowed in most cases. But, a later case weakened the rule, and now ever misdemeanor drug offenses might be enough. Cf. Justice Stevens' comments here.

We Deserve More Than This, If We So Demand

China v. Korea: China, after being one-hit, escapes mercy rule by hitting home run, making it 9-1 (Korea scored in 8th to make it 10-1, but the rule kicks in when a team is ahead by 10 after 7 ... or 15 after 5 ... China lost 18-2 the day before). Moral victory!

Zooming around the television dial, since nothing was on again (whine whine), I caught a bit of a media discussion at some Barnes and Nobles, two of the participants were Paul Krugman and Chris Hedges, the latter sometimes has the flavor of an Old Testament prophet bewailing the falsity of our coverage of war.

An audience member hit hard the anger some of have about what is going on. He referenced one of Cheney's "no doubt" claims before the war, followed up by his claims that he never actually said that. [This is akin to the repeated claims that things ... like the levees breaching, Hamas winning, planes flying into towers etc. ... was nothing ANYONE would have expected, though darn if many did.] Why, the member angrily noted, did the media not just put the two remarks side by side? Apparently, they simply did not want to risk their jobs ... or worse, one might add, their prestige and connections. After all, as referenced in War Made Easy by Norman Solomon, at least the mouthpiece of Saddam could rightly claim that his life was in danger. What is the bloody excuse here?

I am quite happy for the committees of correspondence (Revolutionary War reference), often known as blogs, who do yeoman battles -- usually while having other jobs unlike the media -- putting forth the facts. Consider this, in which when a few Republican senators -- not members of the House, where slavish conformity is apparently required from the campaign days -- show some sign of wanting merely to investigate the President's NSA follies. Traitorous fools! They are helping the Democrats politicize the Intelligence Committe, unlike Sen. Roberts, who just wants to make it an non-entity. The media accounts are somewhat underwhelming. One audience member noted that pre-war, many media accounts could have just tuned into WBAI (or Democracy Now!). They also would be advised to tune into the blogosphere.

Before this crime against humanity in Iraq ("we are taking the war to those who attacked us!!!" liar liar ... asshole), I wrote a decent amount trying to show why I think going to war was wrong, including unconstitutional as being carried forth. As with Gulf War I, it seemed so standard -- we go an avoidable path (we did not warn Saddam respecting Kuwait, but if anything sent mixed signals suggesting we did not really care about it), and now are stuck with a no win solution. One in which people who know it is f-ed warily tell us that we need to continue a problem filled course, since there is no easy way. It's like tossing a child into a highway ... saving him/her will probably result in tragedy somehow ... but hey, we have to save the child! And, you know, just everyone thought he had WMDs. Well, like I said with reluctant war hawk Tim Noah so argued, NO WE DIDN'T.

Thus, I simply cannot focus too much on the exact details. I try to keep up to date, but it's the same old thing, with some signs of hope that makes total hopelessness of some a bit hard to accept. But, that wasn't the low bar that had to be met for war not to have been a good idea. The PTB make it so easy since they are so lousy. Thank you BTC News and others who have the stomach for it. BTC btw has arrived. It has been honored by Daily Kos and Atrios, who linked up to underline its wanker of the day as well as mentioning it on Air America. The wanker btw is the new political commentator at Slate, who leaves a bit to be desired ... his promotion of a lie because of an alleged journalistic duty to protect sources was probably the last straw even before his latest bit on how it was surprising -- since you know insiders told him differently -- that Bush really is not too engaged and such. Slate ... liberal establishment media.

These times seem akin to a Greek Tragedy. The end, like a Colombo episode, was foreordained. It was how you got there that mattered. The repeated accomplishments, so to speak, of the PTB advancing their anti-American agenda must continually be matched by those who in whatever way possible can uphold the values this country and its citizens should follow. And, eventually, we will reach the light at the end of the tunnel ... or see it more clearly than the darkness that overwhelms us too much nowadays. We must not ala Plato's cave, consider the shadows reality.

Or, almost as bad, expect nothing much more.

---

PS: Respecting the title, Norman Mailer was on Air America with his son recently and noted that the Democrats didn't deserve to win in '04 given how badly the campaign was run. He referenced in particular the stupid hunting photo-op and Kerry's failure to challenge Bush to criticize attacks on his military record during the debates. I also recall that human rights really was not made an issue. Doesn't sell well, right? The Democrats might not have deserved to win, but we really deserved it. Maybe not. But, we needed it.

South Africa v. Italy Baseball?

And Also:Wal-Mart has changed its mind on Plan B. This thread concerns some thoughts on the "ridiculous" (Scalia's words) lawsuit respecting the Texas re-districting case.

The World Baseball Classic has been the talk of Talk Radio over here, perhaps because the Knicks suck, and no one really cares about the Olympics or hockey. Anyway, the idea seems to me kind of fun -- players are grouped by country and play in a tournament of sixteen games or so. The fear is that someone will get hurt, and it does seem an irregular time to have it ... pitchers in particular are not in "game" shape in early March. And, also will not this interfere with Spring Training, especially those back-ups that will not play that much? It would seem that November or so might be a better time for this, especially since football is basically only a one day a week deal (putting aside MNF and I guess maybe Thursday by some reports).

There does seem to be a sense of unreality, which arose during the Olympics during hockey (Why do we let professionals play in the Olympics anyway? I thought it was for amateurs.), in which the "competitors" are really teammates in the U.S. artificially split up by nationality. Thus, even though the U.S. hockey team sorta of bombed -- perhaps because some of their best players are not Americans -- hockey fans could in effect still be happy with the winners. After all, they root for these players outside of the Olympics context. Thus, Pedro Martinez -- who seems not to be playing given his foot and such -- would be the "enemy" so to speak, while Derek Jeter would not, even if you are a "Mets" fan.

Now, surely, this will not be taken too seriously. Some cynically see it as merely a money making scheme. Well, sure, why not? The problem does arise that the players might get hurt. Also, it has the feel of a pick-up game in that they really do not have time to practice together as a team. This was suggested as a problem during the Olympics ... compare this to the days of the Miracle, in which the team played together for some time.

Finally, looking at the way the four groups (sixteen countries/teams) are split, it seems a bit strange. The problem appears to be the inclusion of those "baseball" countries of the Netherlands, Italy, South Africa, and Australia. There are Italian players and the Netherlands has connections to Latin America, so their inclusion makes some degree of sense. South Africa and Australia, less so. Also, other than perhaps travel concerns, why are Australia, Italy, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela grouped together? Putting South Africa with the three countries of North America might just be an "odd country out" deal.

Anyway, I saw part of a South Korea/Taiwan game last night. Not bad. There are various rules, such as a sixty-five pitch count limit (not used mid-batter), which should result in many three or so inning starts. Also, a mercy rule, but it's something like 10 or 15 runs, so if it actually kicks in, it will be a bit sad. And, we also have pre-season baseball. Any port in a storm, huh?

Reading Is Fundamental

And Also: Julie Hilden supplies some more trenchant remarks on the cartoon controversy. And, here's a good example of double standards as currently practiced by the Bush Administration ... and our government as a whole, to give blame where blame is due.

Russ: Sen. Russ Feingold is doing truly yeoman efforts to reign in the U.S. Patriot Act. Now, he is quoting children books on the government to underline the basic themes of separation of powers, on some level something an elementary civics book can explain fairly easily. Unfortunately, too many people in the government find it harder.

On the level, the ports deal, as touched upon here, is being handled better than one might think -- even if you think it's much ado about nothing. It serves as a check, dealing with our concerns (warranted or not -- but vetting helps a lot here; how about that fact that UAE boycotted Israel ...), and maybe even will encourage more port security overall. Or even more. Small matters, even politically tinged ones, do sometimes work that way. Anyway, is Feingold presidential timber? Well, I don't know, but he's doing good work.

Books: "Samantha," that is, Kim Cattrell, ran with her role in Sex and the City and went into the documentary business ... namely, examining her reason for being, sex. One companion book, Sexual Intelligence, was at the local library. Good coffee table book, I guess, with some nice pictures. Not too much ahem "meat", but a few interesting factoids on sexual science, historical practices, and so forth. As with Jennifer Aniston (though her career continued to shine afterwards, unlike half or perhaps two thirds, of the cast), Cattrell also is one of those stars who just plain got lucky. She was not exactly a major name before her big break, mostly in some minor films and such. Such is life though.

Well, since I brought it up ... Jennifer Aniston has shown herself to be a very good actor in both comedic and dramatic films, The Good Girl showing her chops in the latter. Lisa Kudow also has had some success, especially in the indie market, though the third Friend with some success (Chandler) has been less successful. Nonetheless, a couple guest spots on West Wing and a few amusing moves (including The Whole Nine Yards) suggests some possibility of success. The rest of the cast has been less successful, including the sitcom Joey (I have yet to seen this thing ... no great loss).

As to Sex and the City, Carrie has been on stage and screen, but special note should be supplied to Miranda. Her guest shots on House and ER were both excellent and she currently starring in a play. She has a promising future.

Baseball is back!

Related Deals With Pregnancy Loss

RIP: Three stars of television (and the movies ... somewhat less so) in the '60s and '70s have died in the last week. It does appear that in the couple years, a lot of stars have died. Anyway, Don Knotts, Darren McGavin (Night Stalker), and Dennis Weaver (Duel; McCloud) all died within the last week. The alliteration barely needs to be mentioned. Good second level stars all, including yes, Knotts, who amused more people than some probably wish to accept.

[On the subject of cute WB shows, Gilmore Girls was actually good today, even though it largely concerned two characters that annoy me. Not great or anything, but a pleasant episode. Even Paris was not too much to take, which is hard since she has been so overplayed by now. I would add, fans will recognize this, the Paris/Rory relationship has such a comfort level by now it is striking.]

Before re-touching a past issue, let me comment on the latest episode of Related (WB Mon). After starting with another one too many romantic twist (back and forth ... except for the married one with the annoying voice), it went in a suprising serious direction -- the pregnant mom lost her baby. I fear when light entertainment tackles serious things, since it sometimes does not have the moral weight to take it. But, Related has shown some maturity among its standard fare, even if I wish the women were a bit more deep in certain ways. And, the episode was handled well, including the different ways the mom and dad handled things.

The episode also threw in another matter and did so in a nice low key way. The therapist sister goes in to try to "reach" the mom who drew within herself to be numb and we find out the sister had an abortion (the word was never used). The mom just could not take her being there at the moment (she had a choice, etc.), even though she admits that the choice was the right one for the sister. I simply do not know the last time the subject was handled with one of the main characters involved and it was said to be the "right" choice. A complication was that she had it at the beginning of her relationship with her boyfriend, so never told him. [She also is Catholic.]

This was hard for her, but again, it is not like (unlike the women in Sex in the City) she thought the abortion itself was simply horrible. Millions of women have had abortions. Apparently, the entertainment industry is ridiculously liberal. No taboos. Well, not quite. Ah, one should toss in Degrassi, but that is a Canadian show ... I had to ask someone to download the abortion episode, since it was not made available by the U.S. distributor.

Thanks Related ... as with the episode remembering the sisters' mom who died years earlier, you have some special moments and do them well. And, the sisters' father also shined in his few moments, while the dad who lost his child also was good. "Bob" is not a great name to our family, but he is a good one.

---

As to the pharmacist issue, one thing that stood out upon reflection is that we let stores not supply any number of non-prescription items, both health and non-health required. Sometimes, when they do not supply them (certain literature, including unedited for content or somehow controversial), we are upset. But, we do not think they have legal obligations to submit. And, some of these things are fundamental -- certain over the counter items are necessary for our health while other items are necessary for our well-being. Certain groups find this to be the case when they read certain information about their bodies or people like themselves.

So, I am not sure why certain types of prescriptions should be singled out -- and requiring all is even worse, since many are less useful than over the counter items, just more dangerous. Consider certain prescription diet pills ... often not much different than the non-prescription, but you are telling me pharmacies should be required to supply one, not the other? Or, is it because we do not like the beliefs the people involved, some who oppose use of RU-486 on first trimester pregnancies clearly for non-theraputic abortions. Abortions clearly secured by law and necessary to the well being of many women, but clearly not free of moral implications. Morning after pills are less morally complicated, in fact, probably less so than many things sold over the counter. Why should the fact something is prescribed be the test?

My middle ground: a law that give individual employees special rights in this area is too messy -- a consistent conscience regime (one that just simply is not supplied, especially in this area) would be too complicated, even if employers should try to accomodate when possible -- but employers should have the option. The exception is when access to important drugs (and in some states, line drawing is a factor) would be threatened when this occurs. In rural areas, where Walmart is favored, this will sometimes be a factor. But, in many cases, it simply will not be. And, this might not only affect pharmacists ... those important non-prescription drug items, you know.

Some might not trust some of these areas to truly protect access. But, again, pharmacists only are part of the problem. And, a basic interest is at stake here: an evenhanded respect for conscience, one that guides many who are demanding access too. They too are making conscientious choices, choices that the other side might not respect. But, the law currently does (except, of course, when its doesn't -- such as funding issues), and we must point this out.

Consistent moral respect is a fundamental interest in society ... one that just might hit you in its absence. And, it is not a free lunch deal. Freedoms have some cost. Dealing with Walmart in some cases just might be one of them.

Lemons Out of Lemonade

I live for this stuff: Bringing back my House DVD, I overheard someone mention a "house" ... I also kinda love bad puns. ["Yes, it's a Hail Mary, but, when it's 4th and a hundred, you don't call a running play ... except if you are the Jets."]

There have been various accounts explaining how it actually is not inherently bad that there is evil in the world, thus dealing with the perennial questions respecting God. Since we mere mortals are said not to be able to understand all of said creator's doings, maybe the problem is that we ala Job are being a bit too full of ourselves. Darn logical musings!

Seriously, my sense -- for what it is worth -- is that bad things are not somehow inherently valuable. I think we can survive pretty well without some of the horrible things out there. The best we can do is use them to our advantage, the best we can. Thus, no, let's not explain to the family member that the fact some heinous soul raped their daughter is you know useful somehow since pain is uplifting or whatever [link to eloquent Narnia source-like descriptions of concept]. No, take what you can to allow them to survive it, and know that we are hot wired to take a lot of shit.

And, yes, along the way, some good will be done. A lot of human spirit is shown in the worst of times, which is a good thing. Not really a justification for the problem, but a way to live through a life that will have enough bad things so that such defense mechanicism are going to be necessary again and again. The thing works writ large and small. You miss your daughter's recital, but on the way back, you find a nice little gift while going to the store (where you would not have gone, if you saw Samantha sing her heart out) that she loves. Little things like that actually are nice ... go with the punches. Miss a certain train, go home a different way, get some Chinese food. Don't stress too much, it will work out more than not.

Writ large, it's harder, but it is roughly the same -- just on a different level. An aside. The NYT Magazine yesterday had a piece on a young man that was a spokesman for the Taliban before eventually winding up at Yale. The journalist who got him there once told his peeps that yes, man is related to the dog, a creature (consider this given their use in Gitmo) seen as distasteful to the Afghan culture. And, he spelled out various similarities, such as the location of the eyes and so forth. Connections on a certain level of generality, but connections all the same. I like that -- it's how I try to see things, a way to understand things and people that do not share my beliefs and life style, but on some basic level is like me. Thus, I respect the moral beliefs of those who I oppose -- they might not do the same, but then people who share my own do not always reciprocate either. Connections, you know?

The immediate application of this sentiment, not quite as profound as the example listed above (though, sadly, on some level, not really), that brought up this philosophizing is the current political situation. I think it is a warning of what happens when we relent, we forget certain basic norms that should underline what our political leadership should follow. In other words, it is a wake up call, even if it is akin to using an air horn instead of an alarm clock. On that level, Laura Flanders last night had a point -- in '04 a certain upstart Dem with progressive instincts received 44% of the vote against Henry Hyde. He's retiring, so the seat will be open ... but, instead of supporting this grass roots/resident again, the PTB (and the junior senator from Illinois, if not Howard Dean) is supporting Tammy Duckworth, a "fighting Dem" who never lived in the district, is a first timer, and is more conservative overall.

Is this the way to win? Ditto Paul Hackett. Yes, it looks like he might have been a bad candidate -- his close race in a special election last year in my view was overblown by some (everything was in his favor and he still lost ... against a hack), and hew as more symbol than a credible senatorial candidate. But, by pushing him out, the PTB in the Democratic Party made themselves look bad. Some real life voters felt cheated while the Republicans smiled. Now, Sherrod Brown looks to be a great candidate. Fine. Let him win a primary. Did they fear that Brown would lose against poorly funded and supported PH? This heavy-handed style (including by my self righteous senator, Chuck) just plain rubs me the wrong way.

Anyway, it's not morally uplifting in the abstract or anything, but let's take the lemons and make lemonade. Rightly sweetened, it is a yummy drink chilled.

And Also: I just heard on the radio that there are now some "strict" guidelines respecting rebuilding at Ground Zero. Yes, sure, not much longer than five years, we mean it! A Knicks winning season will come before they start something down there. It's depressing, but hey, I guess while it's a big hole, it's easier to use as a cheap political motif.

A bit more on the Cass Sunstein book referenced yesterday. One thing that annoyed me was his claim that Nixon barely won in '68, so the Warren Court jurisprudence that secured parts of his Second Bill of Rights easily could have continued in most senses of the word. Nixon did received about one percentage more of the popular vote, the first of several plurality presidents in the last forty years.

But, Wallace got the balance of the vote ... over ten percent ... and surely his voters mostly were Nixonian. See also, CS' claim (with others, on both sides) that abortion rights were just about to be nationwide when Roe came down.

Good Night, and Good Luck

And Also: I discuss the lethal injection protocols referenced last time here. But, perhaps more interesting, here and here supplies some perspectives from those in the pharmacy industry.

We will not walk in fear,* one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descendant from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

-- Edward R. Murrow.

Sarah Vowell is filling in as a guest columnist in NYT as is a welcome sight -- as usual, the guest columnists are better than the ones they replace. Anyway, she commented on Good Night, and Good Luck, which I never watched, partly in fear of some sort of historical inaccuracies (though not that familiar with the immediate events) and partly that it would be a bit too didactic.

Historical films are rarely really fully accurate, and on some level cannot be because of restraints of the medium, though some probably can be more than the norm. [See, Past Imperfect.] But, this one feels right, down to its B&W film and music selections. And, the acting hits home. My problem is that it is a bit too good to be true ... it really is a bit too black and white. Everyone is basically a good guy, except for Sen. McCarthy. Some, like the main press guy at Slate, criticized some of the history of the film. And, probably that might be open to some, though I'll let people a bit more familiar do so. My problem is that it did feel a bit didactic, though the real life fear of the age plus the flavor of the main characters shined thru.

It was quite a feat for George Clooney, who also co-wrote, also seen in another "politics in film" piece -- and nominated for it too -- Syriana. I really don't want to see that ... maybe, one day, like Sarah, I will see one of them on a plane. No, probably not. Anyway, (GNGL) definitely worth watching, and deserving some notice at the Academy Awards.

On the way down, I found part of yesterday's paper (NYT) ... some good things. The beliefs section referenced abortion, in particular the greatly divided stance of high school students. One should take with a grain of salt beliefs as to personal morality, since things change when it hits you. Still, good stuff. It touched up William Saletan's (greatly criticized in certain parts) editorial of a few weeks back, noting that "abortion is bad" is vague. Bad like chemo or child labor?

In other words, sure, it's not "good," but saying it's "bad" can be misleading, and in fact easily abused by the other side. This is why ... the clueless aside ... why abortion rights sorts are loathe to use it as their new motto. You know, "hey, we know it's terrible, we need to get rid of it, but for now, it's a necessary evil!" Also quite popular with gun supporters.

---

* I also recently read The Second Bill of Rights by Cass Sunstein, which promotes the social and economic rights promoted by FDR, and makes some good points on the connection between so-called positive and negative rights. The government has to positively protect property. Also, between economic and political rights: want deprives one of the liberty to properly enjoy our rights.

But, Sunstein accepts that at some point fear for security -- here respecting things such as health care and the like -- also is a problem. It would weaken us our a people. Of course, the same applies to the other fear for "security" -- the Bush sort.

Fill That Script!

Junior Senator from Il: "I think that the Democratic Party should stand for economic policies that give opportunity to all people, a foreign policy that's tough and smart and a vision for the future that combines individual responsibility with a sense of community."

I rented a DVD of House, the television show, and noticed the end of the opening montage has the "team" of doctors walking down the hospital hall in the same basic way they do in the court house in Law & Order. The show concerns the team basically solving medical mysteries, so there is a sort of a connection ... the similarity is surely not coincidental.

"Death and Wal-Mart: Pharmacists, physicians, and the right of conscience." And, now to reality. This Slate piece connects two facially related, but not quite the same, recent controversies. One involves California not being able to execute someone because they could find no medical personnel to take part in the protocol deemed necessary by law -- the AMA not surprisingly frowns upon this sort of thing. Meanwhile, Walmart and other pharmacies are claiming the right for conscience reasons not to sell RU-486 and so forth.

Timely, since an appellate decision just struck down as overboard a state's rejection of a protocol allowing its use past what the state law allows. It noted that the FDA does not deal with off-label use, since the state deals with medicine generally ... Congress should be reminded about that re partial birth abortion. Anyway, the pharmacy want not to sell "abortion drugs" because they think it kills (or their owners do) a person. The drug is allowed under this protocol up to 63 days, so the claim isn't laughable. It just clashes with a woman's right to health. Surely, to the degree the state can protect it.

And, the pharmacists aren't quite medical personnel directly killing adult death row inmates. Different degrees here, even putting aside the fact the law doesn't recognize the personhood of those embryos. Still, the claim is not trivial. The American Pharmacy Association "recognizes the individual pharmacist's right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure [the] patient's access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist's right of conscientious refusal."

And, as the APA suggests, pharmacists are not just pill suppliers. Sometimes, there are reasons for them to not supply certain drugs, or at least, advise the customer not to use them. Yes, they don't have patient/client confidentiality or anywhere close of a relationship. So, in this case, sometimes the woman will be using emergency contraception while not even being pregnant or will need it for serious health problems.

[I find the APA's position as pretty relevant, but I do not recall it being included in various stories on this issue. It probably was somewhere, but it is telling all the same ... too often some news story lacks some significant fact that is important to me. In fact, one message board discussion of this issue implied pharmacists have an ethical obligation to dispense these drugs per their own bylaws. But, this is not true, apparently.]

But, as the APA testimony notes, it is not an all/nothing deal. A way can be set up where the woman still obtains the drugs ... just not there. If this is shown to be a risk for the patient/customer, adequate supply of medicine might require licensed pharmacists to be required to supply the drugs. This will be iffy though in large urban areas -- my own neck of the woods has plenty of suppliers, so why should one or two not be able to choose not to sell?

Direct involvement in execution is not the same as indirect involvement perhaps in a non-therapeutic abortion in early pregnancy. Clearly. But, conscience clauses are not backed up with nothing either. A pro-choice person can recognize a pro-life person has different views. So don't go into the pharmacy field, s/he says. Oh, where will that stop? Any number of fields will force people to go against their conscience now, even if a means can be set up to supply an exception.

After all, maybe that police officer will be needed on the Sabbath. Sure, ten others, and he is willing to work on Christmas. But, he has a stupid belief, and who knows, maybe someone will be stabbed. And, he is willing to work if their is a state emergency, right? No absolutist he ...

Poor example? Oh, there are others. Comparing lethal injection to dispensing RU-486 and morning after pills (especially the latter) is lame, but denouncing conscience clauses as totally dumb for the latter is a wee bit lame too.

Ports and Skating

And Also: I put an extended reply to someone who disagrees with me on the final bit included in the last post. Simply put, if the alternative I raise is troubling, I say "give me something else," since the current calculus doesn't cut it for me.

Port Deal: A Republican noted that the ports deal is a good business decision, but was carried out with lousy political acumen ... paraphrasing, but that was the point. And, it is at least half the problem, and damning enough. We have leaders who cannot lead. This is troubling.

Oh, and Charles Krauthammer is really showing himself as a shill of late, including an editorial admitting "yes the deal shouldn't have been made, we have reasons to be concerned, but hey, I'm going to say the Democrats are just being cynical hypocrites for saying the same thing." What grates particularly is his phony self-image as a realist while feigning shock and disgust for political opponents taking advantage of the situation. But, is this not the whole point of our system? A system of checks and balances in part secured by the "outs" checking the "ins" because of personal interest? CK knows this, but is a shill, so cannot admit it.

Olympics Again: I caught a bit of the Olympics last night. First, after a favorite sports talk show, there was the audio of some of the women figure skating. This was at 11 P.M. ... after various 20/20 (every twenty minutes, the station supplies sports updates) telling me the end result of the slip-up that led to only a silver. It is not only a problem of the WFAN NY ... teases on television apparently also basically let the cat out of the bag. The perils of Italy live action, I guess, but what is the value of having Olympic audio if you ruin the ending?

The NYT today underlined that the Winter Olympics targets only a limited audience, since even more popular sports like hockey (not helped by an early U.S. exit) has a small demographic. This is so even if Due South praised the wonders of curling aka Men with Brooms. But, what else really is on? Just one more subpar television experience. After all, how much skiing can one take? The NYT was partly right -- they could make it more accessible, but inherently, the games are not too exciting to watch. After all, watching baseball/football straight thru is often a bit much. Hours of this, especially in tiny increments, is a bit ridiculous.

Still, I did catch two routines of women figure skating, and it is pretty amazing -- if quick, even the long routines. Silvia Fontana, the Italian home girl, was emotional for just having a chance to return and skate in her own country. And, Tugba Karademir was Turkey's (two official rinks in country) first Olympic figure skater, a late fill-in. Neither were close to winners, but more importantly, had good stories. And, no wonder the silver and bronze messed up -- darn the pressure those women (girls often) are under. Try to do those routines! Not bad on the eyes either.

Smoking Gun Tasteless Dept: Anyway, this might be deemed a bit much, but within limits something akin to it might be fun. [This reply suggests that this might be seen a bit flippant, but my first impression was "this guy is nuts" ... still, something like this consensually done probably is tried by some people. This seemed to be the general sentiment of other blogs commenting on the case. I guess the reply has an 'eye for an eye' feel. It also is probably in better taste than this account in my own paper. The part about her being married "for better or worse" ... a bit tasteless.]

Yoo Idiot

Sometimes, it is hard not to scream. I mentioned in my "idiot" post that various panel discussions concerning legal matters have been on C-SPAN lately, including those with John Yoo. And, this guy is getting a lot of exposure, as shown by a debate of sorts in which he faced Peter Irons (liberal law professor) ... Irons is an older gentleman and probably a peaceful sort, explaining why he did not punch Yoo is the nose for promoting executive monarchy. Yoo was on a panel of international law and was again on in a solo performance for the Heritage Foundation, introduced by Edward Meese. He was in other words with friends, suggesting why Yoo was able to put forth loads of B.S. without response.

I caught only a piece of the thing, but it was enough for me. Yoo argued that there were various limits to the President's claims of national warrant tap power, all meaning little or nothing in practice. The courts can use the exclusionary rule to keep any information obtained from being used. The administration does not really believe in trials, so this rarely will even be a possibility, and does not cover the concerns of ordinary citizens that they are being targeted.

Anyway, along with the possibility that Congress can remove funding, how likely is this to occur in practice? As to the funding issue: an illegal and unconstitutional policy can only be stopped via not only more legislation (difficult) but veto proof at that (fear of veto, and so forth, will result in some half-assed solution). Finally, there are the so-called Bivens suits, civil damages. But, the whole thing is secret -- people don't know they are being targeted, which is partly the whole point of secret FISA points. So, how can they sue? Executive secrecy has been upheld repeated, even if in the process civil lawsuits cannot be carried forth.

Yoo, maybe this is projecting, seems to be an unpleasant character. As with Alberto Gonzalez, he appears to be a quite smart cookie, who has used his knowledge to be a lackey and promoter of injustice. Also, he comes off as a bit of an asshole. Finally, I read a piece of his in which he feared that current law has developed to give Congress too much power, the Necessary and Proper Clause in particular run riot. But, one man via vague and if anything originally understood limited phrase, well nothing to see here. He needs MORE power. Intellectually bankrupt ... should be nominated for a judgeship sometime soon.

Meanwhile, here's an essay more up my alley.

Port Deal

More Kevin Drum: "And in other state news, South Dakota is about to ban abortion in the hopes that John Paul Stevens will die soon and a new George Bushified Supreme Court will uphold their shiny new uterus regulation legislation. Yet another reason not to bother taking a vacation to see Mount Rushmore."

The issue is "how should Democrats respond now?". There are several possibilities: (1) Agree with the xenophobes; (2) defend Bush from the xenophobes; (3) ignore the issue; (4) pivot to issues other than those raised by the xenophobes that this action raises.

So says a comment on one of Kevin Drum's posts on the UAE controlling port operations controversy. True enough. There is a good argument to be made that xenophobia is part of the controversy, and your respectful leftist anti-Bushie sorts are making them. And, I actually am sympathetic to those who suggested there is less here than meets the eye, putting aside the political fun. It is interesting that Drum referenced comments from all the port operators except New York. Are we chopped liver?

Anyway, four issues are involved: the law, cronyism, safety, and public opinion. A look at the comments suggests the law might not have been clearly followed, but on its own this does not shock, does it? Anyway, a core issue raised is the time period for review, which is not 45 days ... but within that amount of time. Congress also apparently is supposed to be notified in some fashion. This seemingly important provision -- consider NSA -- has not been emphasized. As to cronyism, the leftist suggests that is a red flag. How about safety? The fact that Rummy didn't know about it until last weekend also seems troubling. One responder claiming some special knowledge argues:

Port operations means scheduling ships, loading and unloading, operating cranes, providing fuel, and otherwise handling product (mostly containers, these days). Most of the containers are sealed before they're put on a ship, and Customs (not port operations) inspects about 5% of them. Those containers are then put on trains which may belong to foreign corporations, are offloaded in privately owned rail yards (in the city where I live, our choices are the Burlington Northern or the Canadian Pacific) and often picked up by immigrant truck drivers to be delivered to their ultimate consignee.

Although the culture of a port operator would affect efficiency, it would still be very difficult for the company to have a serious effect on national security.

I'm with another person on the thread -- surely this has some effect on national security. Sure, given governmental control and all, not as much as some might think. But, consider a security guard -- he a small cog and is overseen and has to follow set guidelines. Still, significant person, one who in day to day affairs really acts independently. Another person notes that we have had some real concern with UAE, even if they apparently are on board on the War On Terror. I assume so is Saudi Arabia. All the same, given their past, it is not irrational (or racist) to re-consider supplying them the contract. Also, the general sentiment that we should use this to bludgeon Bush et. al. for not adequately funding measures to deal with port security is fine. The idea that every single port matter will be under government control, however, is dubious.

As to politics, how amusing. The Bush Administration appears to look stupid here -- though I think giving the actually fearful Republicans in Congress a means to distance themselves from them in mid-term election has a "crazy like a fox" flavor to it. John Dickerson over at Slate suggests they look at the "long term" -- in the long term we are dead (out of power).

In the related area of public opinion, this also looks stupid. Let's say the two dissidents above are right ... Bush actually is right here (well, somewhat) ... clearly having it come out this way is ridiculous. The deal is clearly sensitive. If nothing else, Republican leadership sorts should have been warned. And a veto? Apparently, the torture measure was too stupid even for them, and they do not like to ever to admit they might be wrong. Interstate commerce? Heck, that isn't Congress' job is it? A difference of opinion that bipartisan congressional decision-making should determine? Funny!

It is notable too that Bush says we should trust the UAE, but not Congress or the courts (NSA matter etc.). Also, civil liberties, not worth it, but free trade? Most definitely ... cannot risk that! Anyway, since Bush was reportedly not involved in the actual decisonmaking here, he really gets no credit overall. More here.

Joe: Idiot

And Also: Doonesbury had a striking tidbit recently in which BD references to his VA counselor that his mom was overly concerned about his safety, thus required him to wear headgear from infancy. This puts a major spin on thirty years of strips in which he always wore a helmet. The BD subplot btw is striking ... one memorable strip is when the receptionist calls him “sir” and he wonders why, since he is no longer active in the military. She responded that given his long service, it would be remarkable if she did not speak to him with respect.

[W]hen we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to ... hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation.... The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.... We must consider what the country has become ...

-- Justice Holmes

This (along with the appropriate quote from the national bank case written by Chief Justice Marshall about a century before) is one of my favorites respecting the true nature of the U.S. Constitution. And, it is one that I first read before I began writing online about these issues. The first time might have been in a nifty little volume by Laurence Tribe and Michael Dorf (who is a regular contributor of the equally nifty Findlaw website essays) on constitutional analysis entitled On Reading the Constitution. It was one of the times -- less than I should -- wrote notes. Here is my summary of their guidelines on reading [vs reading into] the Constitution:

(1) Framer’s Overall Philosophy -- example includes property protections such as the takings clause: these presuppose the existence of private property also rejects the idea that socialism is included in the equal protection clause

(2) Precedent -- it is always a good idea to lay a foundation of precedent, even when going into new directions of constitutional law; the model here is the common law method

(3) Integration without hyper-integration -- though there is no one unity (different traditions like federalism, tradition, democracy, etc. is actually a plus for its complexity), various parts do combine into wholes such as privacy.

[Tribe, by the way, was recently on a panel shown on C-SPAN that dealt with the constitutional interests involved in the current “War On Terror,” one whose general sentiment was that the Bush Administration is a threat to basic constitutional norms. It was one of many legal panels recently on the network, including one on international law (John Yoo again showed his face) and an admittedly boring one on yesterday’s orals on the Clean Water Act cases. A quite useful resource -- a regular “Supreme Court Watch” show should be on ... it actually was on Court TV a few years back with a chipmunk cheeked cutie as one of the reporters. Not blonde either!]

Anyway, this whole matter came up because of a recent speech [cited last time] by Justice Scalia in which he continued his jeremiad against the “living Constitution.” Clearly playing for the cameras, Scalia called those that did not agree with his opposition to this concept “idiots.” Since Scalia opposes school segregation, a concept deemed by most (though not all, but surely the test is general consensus) of the Framers of the 14th Amendment to be constitutional, he too is an idiot. As am I, so I welcome you to the club, Tony.

Anyway, he called himself an “originalist,” which is nice and all. It also is bogus, since Scalia is as concerned with “tradition” (which is not the same as what people at the time believed), clear statements, and certain personal biases. Someone mentioned to me his basic belief that originalism is totally phony, which is not my own philosophy. We should have some concern for what the original community understood about the Constitution, which suggests why even critics of the philosophy oftentimes cites the thoughts of Madison et. al. (we have a limited view of things; put aside Hamilton and even Adams ... it is like the Framers can be counted on one hand).

But, Scalia’s lame ass simplicity warrants scorn. A major reason is not just because it is false. It also is because it confuses the public and in fact directly misleads them on what actually occurs in the courts and society itself. We the People are not quite that dumb, surely, and instinctively know that our Constitution is no static instrument, but one which has terms that develop over time ... to fall back to legalisms, it is a “common law” Constitution, as one writer quite aptly put it. And, this is what was originally intended. So, ironically, it is quite “originalist,” properly understood. Anyway, this caricature Scalia, in no way as simplistic as his actual opinions (though he does encourage it sometimes), is a mockery of reality. He should be ashamed to promote it, but tenure gives him -- like Ward Churchill -- the right to B.S. without much harm coming to him.

Talking about confusion, I linked a Scotusblog post reporting the announcement of a fairly important religious rights case involving a small group that wanted to use a banned substance in a religious ceremony. The post supplied the actual opinion, a fairly straightforward one, which nicely summarized current law. Current law holds that the Free Exercise Clause does not require the courts to individually examine laws with a general reach, those that do not specifically target religion. Nonetheless, a federal law (RFRA) -- which the Supremes have held (I have mixed feelings about this*) cannot be used against the states -- set forth a stricter test.

Only this statute, not the Constitution, secured the small sect’s rights in this case. However, wire reports did not specify the fact, just saying the Supreme Court held the government could not block their rights. Given the importance of congressional action here, this is troubling. Dorf and Tribe noted that Jefferson counseled Madison that judicial review was an “auxiliary precaution” against tyranny.** And, this very case in miniature suggested this, since a tiny minority was secured ... just as a more protected one (Native Americans using peyote for similar reasons) currently were.

Nonetheless, and I believe this must be emphasized, the courts are by no means the only group that does this. The people and their representatives have quite a major role. In fact, Religious Liberty in America (Louis Fisher) argues that “political safeguards” are even more important than the courts to secure religious liberty. And, he is often quite right. The times surely suggest this to be the case writ large ... the question will remain if the people will truly understand the matter come election time. Or, will trivial matters -- such as Republican opposition to Bush on this port deal -- yet again decide the day? I am sadly unsure.

Oh, today’s the anniversary of the Miracle on Ice vs. the Russians. The movie version with Kurt Russell is excellent.

---

* I am no fan of Oregon v. Smith, which put in place the “general applicable law” test, a rule that basically overturned fifty years of free exercise law harking back to the days of protecting school children from forced flag salutes. That very case, however, opened up a supplementary security, namely so-called “hybrid” interests. The salute case, though concurring justices focused on religious freedom, is often seen as a freedom of thought case. [Religious speech and association has received much attention of late, sometimes in opinions that forget that the First Amendment treats religion different than other matters ... including when speech (e.g., a prayer) ... is involved.]

And, this very case can be seen as an equal protection case -- why should peyote receive special protection? The ruling suggested the government’s interests were debatable, so the “compelling interest” test of the statute was not met. I would argue the discrimination was in fact basically arbitrary. Anyway, applying the law to the states might result in too much micromanaging, so perhaps a healthy respect of religious equality and so forth will deal with most serious state violations of religious freedom. Justice Alito might help in this department.

** A recent Slate fray discussion suggests that various progressives are not big fans of Jefferson, seen as hypocritical and not respectful enough of judicial review. As I noted at the time, this is a bit exaggerated, and suitable criticism need not slip into hypercriticism.

Judge Material vs. The Principled Conservative

Supreme Court Watch: Underlining that the Alito confirmation was not about abortion, the Supremes accepted a partial birth abortion case the first day they returned to work after Alito was on the bench. Also, unanimously, it struck down a ban on the use of drug laced tea, holding RFRA protected its religious use. The ruling was brief and straightforward, in part comparing the ban to the allowance of peyote. CJ Roberts promises to be a clear draftsman. Meanwhile, Scalia continues to be an idiot or play one in public.

Item: "A Republican aide familiar with the Judiciary Committee's schedule said that it is likely to hold hearings for D.C. Circuit Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and 4th U.S. Circuit Court nominee William Haynes after finishing work on immigration."

Ah yes, William Haynes, who the administration and their allies wish to have join Judge Bybee as members of the federal bench that had direct involvement in furthering our inhumane and criminal detainee policy. Repeated opposition will not stop them.

Assumingly, there are not enough conservatives such as the one discussed in a recent New Yorker article:

"Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity," David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, "He surprised us into doing the right thing." Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora's boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

For those who rail against "liberal" critics of the administration's policy, let us put forth people like Alberto Mara, "a courtly and warm man, is a cautious, cerebral conservative who admired President Reagan and served in both the first and the second Bush Administrations as a political appointee." One of a number of heroes who tried to do their part in upholding the values of this country and the country they served. Mara is no minor character, but the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy. He notes:

[Cruelty, not just "torture"] destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It's a transformative issue."

Back to Haynes, whose connections to Cheney are clear: "In confronting Haynes, Mora was engaging not just the Pentagon but also the Vice-President's office. Haynes is a protégé of Cheney's influential chief of staff, David Addington." Of course, on the detainee treatment matter Torture Czar / Attorney General (and chief bottlewasher) Alberto Gonzales is also part of the mix.

Anyway, Mara warned Haynes (who referenced the matter to Cheney) that the detainee policy amounted to torture and broke the law. Unlike Yoo and others, he did not think the President had the authority to uphold such a policy. Haynes did not just disagree, he made Mara think that Mara's general views were being respected. That a more torture friendly policy was rejected. We the people could not be trust with the truth, but nor did the general counsel of the Navy. And others worried about the policy. Those worried about things such as:

Qahtani had been subjected to a hundred and sixty days of isolation in a pen perpetually flooded with artificial light. He was interrogated on forty-eight of fifty-four days, for eighteen to twenty hours at a stretch. He had been stripped naked; straddled by taunting female guards, in an exercise called "invasion of space by a female"; forced to wear women's underwear on his head, and to put on a bra; threatened by dogs; placed on a leash; and told that his mother was a whore. By December, Qahtani had been subjected to a phony kidnapping, deprived of heat, given large quantities of intravenous liquids without access to a toilet, and deprived of sleep for three days. Ten days before Brant and Mora met, Qahtani's heart rate had dropped so precipitately, to thirty-five beats a minute, that he required cardiac monitoring.

What this all wrought is spelled out in more detail here.

Of course, no mistakes etc., were made. Oh, darn, wait ... Oh well, so many eggs break to make an omelet. Perfect judge material.