About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Supreme Court Watch
Interesting federal sentencing guideline cases, including one that allows judges to temper the crack/powder discrepancy (100 to 1), summarizing the issue (including reasons for the difference and how later it was deemed too much) fairly well. Each ruling was 7-2, Scalia supporting precedent, Souter ideally wanting Congress to re-legislate given the new Booker rule, and Thomas/Alito dissenting. The concurrences and dissents overall are telling -- discretion of this sort might be a good idea, but it's somewhat dubious statutory construction. Another ruling was unanimous, but Ginsburg had a cute (and telling) concurrence.
No excuses
The Speech and Debate Clause protects members of Congress who discuss executive wrongdoing on the floor. There are means to avoid violating oaths/affirmation of secrecy. And, losing the privilege of viewing classified info or an ethical violation doesn't justify aiding and abetting of this sort of thing. There are Dem/Rep/Bush Dog differences (see Glenn Greenwald link too) but making it harder to show them -- especially for those who want to ignore them for various reasons -- well, no good excuse for that either.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Giants Won. Miami and Jets Lost. Pats Won.
Eagles almost tied it at the buzzer with a 57yd field goal. All about right. And, per the usual blogs, more Dem enabling. Oh wait, are the Jets trying an onside kick for the fifth time (one for three, one do over) in the final three minutes? No, the game is over. Still lost, but amusing.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Juno: Another Pro-Life Movie
And Also: I put some new books on the side panel. Journey to a Revolution -- from someone who visited the scene as a student -- by Michael Korba provides an interesting look at the failed Hungarian revolution against Russian control in 1956. It occurred at the same time as the Suez Crisis, important in its own sphere and coming at a bad time for the Hungarians since attention was taken off the Russians, both well worth remembering, even if many have heard about neither. 12/7 anyone? Ring any bells?
[I did not see the movie discussed below, and coverage and previews only takes you so far. So, take my comments with a grain of salt, but I think, they are still probably basically sound. To the degree many do not see a lot of the films whose overall flavor I discuss, the message I take out of the coverage is useful on its own as well.]
I have long been interested in abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, because of the many issues that the issue raises. Issues that are deep and profound. The general stance of the country appears to be pro-choice with concerns, an uncomfortable pro-choice in various ways. But, push comes to shove, a clear majority knows situations -- sometimes only when they occur -- where they accept abortion as a legitimate choice. This is true even if they would not make that particular choice themselves. I know such a person, who would not be able to make the choice herself in most situations, but firmly believes it is the choice of the woman involved.
It therefore annoys me, though I recognize facing the issue can be uncomfortable to the viewer, that the issue is so rarely addressed in fiction. Fox News (seriously*) had a documentary that credibly provided a balanced look at the subject, the complexities of the matter in real life. As with Media Matters et. al. that underline that the "liberal media" is not quite liberal enough in some ways, it turns out that Hollywood and yes, indie world, is less balanced. Millions have aborted since Roe, but it is rare that the issue is raised, surely not as a major story point. This includes in cases where many women seriously consider and/or actually do have abortion. As in other situation, this colors how we treat the issue, in real ways even it is hard to quantify.
The opening quote makes a telling point. The review is even more telling, gleefully so in a few cases. Now, I really enjoyed Waitress (the director sadly was brutally murdered for what amounted to trivial reasons, the murderer setting it up to look like a suicide), and fully recommend seeing the movie. And, the idea that an abused wife from the deep South would believe that an unwanted pregnancy -- one she hated to have and by a brute she hates just as much -- was something she had to bear is fully believable. We are talking about a conservative culture, even if it is wrong to simplify all members as backward reprobates.** It also was required for the story that she stay pregnant.
But, if even a few movies portrayed someone who had an abortion in that situation, maybe I would feel a bit better. Examples probably can be listed, but I keep track of films pretty regularly. And, I simply am not aware of too many at all. Abortion might be a decision made, but these films are about having children in various cases where pro-choice people would have in mind when wanting to keep the option open. Bad marriages. A one night stand with a dweeb. A one and pregnant (an anti-sex subtext here is not too hard to imagine) teenage pregnancy. In this movie, abortion is seriously raised, but so far from my reading it raised to be rejected in a somewhat crude fashion.
Again, fine enough that the girl here decides it is not for her. Happens. The reverse does too, however. Juno -- starring the girl who was quite good in Hard Candy -- had received good reviews in part because of the mature treatment of the characters. Smart and supportive parents, flawed but promising wannabe parents who wish to adopt and complex lead that isn't as smart as she thinks, but is smart and complex enough to admire. So, the movie standing alone is worthy of respect, and if you want to add that it has a pro-life aspect to it, fine enough for me. Stereotypes aside, there is more moral and religious content out there than some are willing to give movies and television credit.
Thus, concern from the likes of Mitt Romney [and, in a fashion, Barack Obama too] that faith is seriously threatened these days in the public sphere is dubious. Nor is the pro-life side, if the unbalanced treatment of the issue is any evidence. This underlines how things can be a bit different than it at first might seem -- cf. the small minority of counties with an abortion clinic with the fact it is legal nation-wide. Pro-choice in form, but not quite at substance, the film world is a bit less pro-choice as one might think.
---
* I did not see the documentary, unfortunately, but my local paper gave it a respectable review. The reviewer took a fairly neutral stance on the issue itself, as I recall, but overall thought it a good try (two and a half stars out of four, perhaps). As the link suggests, the doc is open to criticism, but lots of stuff is. If we particularly take the venue into consideration, it is more than we might expect for sure.
** If the regional angle doesn't totally do it for you, other reasons for her simply not taking abortion as a credible option can be suggested. I did not see Knocked-Up, but coverage suggested that comedy with less of an edge (and much less feminist in various ways) didn't really raise it at all. Not very credible, even if plot-wise, it would have been inappropriate.
[I did not see the movie discussed below, and coverage and previews only takes you so far. So, take my comments with a grain of salt, but I think, they are still probably basically sound. To the degree many do not see a lot of the films whose overall flavor I discuss, the message I take out of the coverage is useful on its own as well.]
Juno is the third in an unplanned movie trilogy, the others being Waitress and Knocked Up, where a girl accidentally gets pregnant and grows into a heroine by rejecting abortion as a quick solution. Social conservatives attempting to break through in movies have not yet mastered the art of getting our point across without coming off preachy. But it's fascinating to watch the Hollywood and Indie crowd handle one of our premises pretty much the way we'd like it handled.
-- Jill Stanek [of "Pro-life Pulse"]
I have long been interested in abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, because of the many issues that the issue raises. Issues that are deep and profound. The general stance of the country appears to be pro-choice with concerns, an uncomfortable pro-choice in various ways. But, push comes to shove, a clear majority knows situations -- sometimes only when they occur -- where they accept abortion as a legitimate choice. This is true even if they would not make that particular choice themselves. I know such a person, who would not be able to make the choice herself in most situations, but firmly believes it is the choice of the woman involved.
It therefore annoys me, though I recognize facing the issue can be uncomfortable to the viewer, that the issue is so rarely addressed in fiction. Fox News (seriously*) had a documentary that credibly provided a balanced look at the subject, the complexities of the matter in real life. As with Media Matters et. al. that underline that the "liberal media" is not quite liberal enough in some ways, it turns out that Hollywood and yes, indie world, is less balanced. Millions have aborted since Roe, but it is rare that the issue is raised, surely not as a major story point. This includes in cases where many women seriously consider and/or actually do have abortion. As in other situation, this colors how we treat the issue, in real ways even it is hard to quantify.
The opening quote makes a telling point. The review is even more telling, gleefully so in a few cases. Now, I really enjoyed Waitress (the director sadly was brutally murdered for what amounted to trivial reasons, the murderer setting it up to look like a suicide), and fully recommend seeing the movie. And, the idea that an abused wife from the deep South would believe that an unwanted pregnancy -- one she hated to have and by a brute she hates just as much -- was something she had to bear is fully believable. We are talking about a conservative culture, even if it is wrong to simplify all members as backward reprobates.** It also was required for the story that she stay pregnant.
But, if even a few movies portrayed someone who had an abortion in that situation, maybe I would feel a bit better. Examples probably can be listed, but I keep track of films pretty regularly. And, I simply am not aware of too many at all. Abortion might be a decision made, but these films are about having children in various cases where pro-choice people would have in mind when wanting to keep the option open. Bad marriages. A one night stand with a dweeb. A one and pregnant (an anti-sex subtext here is not too hard to imagine) teenage pregnancy. In this movie, abortion is seriously raised, but so far from my reading it raised to be rejected in a somewhat crude fashion.
Again, fine enough that the girl here decides it is not for her. Happens. The reverse does too, however. Juno -- starring the girl who was quite good in Hard Candy -- had received good reviews in part because of the mature treatment of the characters. Smart and supportive parents, flawed but promising wannabe parents who wish to adopt and complex lead that isn't as smart as she thinks, but is smart and complex enough to admire. So, the movie standing alone is worthy of respect, and if you want to add that it has a pro-life aspect to it, fine enough for me. Stereotypes aside, there is more moral and religious content out there than some are willing to give movies and television credit.
Thus, concern from the likes of Mitt Romney [and, in a fashion, Barack Obama too] that faith is seriously threatened these days in the public sphere is dubious. Nor is the pro-life side, if the unbalanced treatment of the issue is any evidence. This underlines how things can be a bit different than it at first might seem -- cf. the small minority of counties with an abortion clinic with the fact it is legal nation-wide. Pro-choice in form, but not quite at substance, the film world is a bit less pro-choice as one might think.
---
* I did not see the documentary, unfortunately, but my local paper gave it a respectable review. The reviewer took a fairly neutral stance on the issue itself, as I recall, but overall thought it a good try (two and a half stars out of four, perhaps). As the link suggests, the doc is open to criticism, but lots of stuff is. If we particularly take the venue into consideration, it is more than we might expect for sure.
** If the regional angle doesn't totally do it for you, other reasons for her simply not taking abortion as a credible option can be suggested. I did not see Knocked-Up, but coverage suggested that comedy with less of an edge (and much less feminist in various ways) didn't really raise it at all. Not very credible, even if plot-wise, it would have been inappropriate.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Whatcha Going To Do About It?
As Glenn Greenwald noted, the destruction of a video to cover-up torture and obstruct justice as a side benefit, is not new. Neither is there being no real consequences. The latest bit involving CIA and detainees just fits a pattern. Will anything but noise be the result? If not, cynicism is quite appropriate. [I'd add that lack of action not only adds to the propaganda (or worse) of actual terrorists but hinders those who realize that some secrecy -- by those who use their power wisely -- is needed, including in Intel committees in Congress.]
Third Time's The Charm?
And Also: Mitt Romney apparently is no JFK, though some have compared him to John F. Kerry. At least, if his "religious speech" is any proof. No shock there. Now, in the past, I said "religion" should be understood broadly, but I don't think his argument that it's fundamental to being an American is meant to include those who find life's meaning outside of what your average Republican faithful thinks about the term.
The never-ending story, oh I mean detainee cases, continue. See here and here for transcripts and audio. And, here for a flavor of the analysis. Emily Bazelon also had an article on the government's (mis)use of history. For the latter, I had these remarks on the Slate fray:
Various briefs underline that history is not on the side of the administration is different respects. But, this quote [from EB's article] suggests a more telling point:
Simply put, "history" has not really provided an adequate precedent to what is going on here. Amusingly, 9/11 sometimes supposedly "changed everything," except here. [History, as the Brits determined, also taught us not to use the fruits of torture in court. Also, something about not starting land wars in Asia.] Luckily, habeas corpus and constitutional principles overall (particularly due process of law, also relevant here ... even without habeas, "persons" should have some security against arbitrary process when held in areas under U.S. control ... or can we set up slave camps?) are not set in 1789 or even 1942 stone.
Procedures develop over time based on the wisdom and felt necessities of history. It is asinine to ignore the special nature of this conflict. This is underlined by the lack of "POWs" here (who can be released at the end of hostilities and are innocent of any crime), people quite often not taken off the battlefield with guns in their hands, though some talk as if that is what happened.
And yet the retired officers conclude, "Taken together, these differences show that CSRT proceedings are little more than a facade, without even the substantive protections that ensure compliance with Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions and that invest 190-8 tribunals with legitimacy in the eyes of the world." [EB]
As one human rights attorney notes, there is a Kafka-esque flavor here:
Reading The Trial also might be useful given "Detainees expressed particular frustration at not being informed of the source of the testimony against them."
One amici brief in this case was written by Israelis reminding that they manage to deal with their much more at home threat without deprival of a fair hearing in court akin to what is happening here. The Brits in the Rasul case also reminded us that it is good to learn from history, in part their less than ideal treatment of the Irish during "The Troubles."
Some wish to argue ala Prof. John Yoo that the Framers wanted the executive to be like George III. So, history can be twisted. But, we can learn from history too and it is an ever developing thing. So, even accepting their slanted view, I say "so?" We have moved on from the past and are in the 21st Century, one in which the policy of the administration, assisted by congressional legislation* is unjust.
And, not acceptable under correct standards of the law of war, international law and justice, habeas corpus, due process and so on.
---
* Sen. Specter voted for the deprivation of habeas corpus after saying it was a horrible thing to do. Now he signed on to a brief trying to undo what he helped to promote. Neat trick.
The never-ending story, oh I mean detainee cases, continue. See here and here for transcripts and audio. And, here for a flavor of the analysis. Emily Bazelon also had an article on the government's (mis)use of history. For the latter, I had these remarks on the Slate fray:
Various briefs underline that history is not on the side of the administration is different respects. But, this quote [from EB's article] suggests a more telling point:
Finally, the retired officers point out that the stripped-down nature of the CSRTs—defendants also aren't allowed to have lawyers, and in another contradiction of Article 5, the panels are instructed to presume that the government's evidence is "genuine and accurate"—is far less justified because none of the procedures are about battlefield sorting. In the past, the 190-8 tribunals had to operate in the midst of armed conflict, for example in Vietnam. The CSRTs are assessing, with no huge urgency, the status of people who have been held for years and are far removed from any theater of war. Shouldn't the CSRTs be more careful, not less?
Simply put, "history" has not really provided an adequate precedent to what is going on here. Amusingly, 9/11 sometimes supposedly "changed everything," except here. [History, as the Brits determined, also taught us not to use the fruits of torture in court. Also, something about not starting land wars in Asia.] Luckily, habeas corpus and constitutional principles overall (particularly due process of law, also relevant here ... even without habeas, "persons" should have some security against arbitrary process when held in areas under U.S. control ... or can we set up slave camps?) are not set in 1789 or even 1942 stone.
Procedures develop over time based on the wisdom and felt necessities of history. It is asinine to ignore the special nature of this conflict. This is underlined by the lack of "POWs" here (who can be released at the end of hostilities and are innocent of any crime), people quite often not taken off the battlefield with guns in their hands, though some talk as if that is what happened.
And yet the retired officers conclude, "Taken together, these differences show that CSRT proceedings are little more than a facade, without even the substantive protections that ensure compliance with Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions and that invest 190-8 tribunals with legitimacy in the eyes of the world." [EB]
As one human rights attorney notes, there is a Kafka-esque flavor here:
the CSRTs are instructed to ask whether the detainee is "still" an enemy combatant, not whether he ever merited the label in the first place. And in a bizarre formulation, though one that is perfectly characteristic of the CSRTs' approach, any detainee who manages to convince his panel that he is being wrongly held is deemed "no longer" an enemy combatant, rather than simply "not" an enemy combatant.
Reading The Trial also might be useful given "Detainees expressed particular frustration at not being informed of the source of the testimony against them."
One amici brief in this case was written by Israelis reminding that they manage to deal with their much more at home threat without deprival of a fair hearing in court akin to what is happening here. The Brits in the Rasul case also reminded us that it is good to learn from history, in part their less than ideal treatment of the Irish during "The Troubles."
Some wish to argue ala Prof. John Yoo that the Framers wanted the executive to be like George III. So, history can be twisted. But, we can learn from history too and it is an ever developing thing. So, even accepting their slanted view, I say "so?" We have moved on from the past and are in the 21st Century, one in which the policy of the administration, assisted by congressional legislation* is unjust.
And, not acceptable under correct standards of the law of war, international law and justice, habeas corpus, due process and so on.
---
* Sen. Specter voted for the deprivation of habeas corpus after saying it was a horrible thing to do. Now he signed on to a brief trying to undo what he helped to promote. Neat trick.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Enchanted x 2
And Also: I updated the blogroll a bit, including adding an interesting looking blog on religious developments.
I have seen the wrong half of two Giants games. The first half of the Giants/Eagles game (second edition) wasn't always pretty, but it ended on a decent 17 all note. And, thereafter, they fell apart. This time, after the Jets (unfavored) finished off the Dolphins with much time to spare (40-13), the Giants struggled vs. the Bears. Even after I left to see Enchanted, they went down 16-7. The late comeback needs to be caught on NFL Network replay. [Games aren't listed yet on my on t.v. directory, but this should be one of them]*
Meanwhile, I'm no fan of the loser Ravens. They beat the Giants in the Super Bowl, helped by a questionable call (yeah, they beat them good, but the call was a turning point). They also -- in a game I actually travelled to see -- beat the Jets to help clinch their losing season. The Jets that year (under that old QB, Vinny T. ... wonder what happened to him) did self-destruct in various ways, but the Ravens helped. And, they are known to have an attitude problem, partially from their defense minded nature that at times looks like bullying.
But, I don't like NE more -- I'm tired of them; once, I actually rooted for them vs. St. Louis, but the bloom is gone. It's time for them to lose a damn game. The Ravens, the second team in the row favored to lose by about 20, did the Eagles one better -- they were actually AHEAD late. 24-20. Now, the Pats had time outs, and getting the ball back would not necessarily end the game. But, it would have been close. Especially, after a second chance by penalty still made it fourth and medium in the red zone. Holding! First and goal! TD! Desperation toss stops at the 2.** The [expletive deleted] win again.
Way to choke! Now, it's up to Pittsburgh. [The last game is vs. the Giants, who hopefully will not be playing for anything much. They have a credible shot, but I rather not put my trust in them. I know them a bit too well.] The odds makers should learn -- at least until the Jets and Miami play them -- and NE will want to finally not have to bite their nails on the sideline late. If they actually do that any more, especially after the last two games. OTOH, the Steelers actually offensively (their defense, I don't know, but these two games should give them ideas) have a shot. But, they too have been known to choke ... admittedly, against bad teams. Grrr.
Anyway, Enchanted, which I talked about here before watching, is a charming movie. I especially liked the music numbers -- both the animated one and the two life action versions. The story of a fairy tale princess coming to NYC has a great lead in Amy Adams, a playful tone that pretty much holds up to the end (the serious moments mostly work too) and the criticism here about the bit of consumerism is well answered by the comments at the end of that article. See also my comments in the previous link; as to three year old brides, another comment rightly pointed out the example of first communion veils.
The movie does have a few lulls and Patrick Dempsey (playing his serious minded lawyer type a bit too well -- he is simply dull) and Susan Sarandon (evil stepmother; the inconvenient "other woman" has a happy ending here, but the evil stepmother is treated rather blandly by the numbers) do not (or are not given much to) do much with their roles. One review notes the first thirty minutes (much spent in the animated world) is where much of the energy lies -- since the second music number comes after that, I think this isn't quite right on that point alone. Anyway, overall it's a charming movie, and a nice respite from some more serious fare.
Some might get a bit disgusted (as the song itself said) "vermin" helping Giselle to clean the apartment, but hey, there were only some roaches here. Cf. Joe's Apartment. (The movie!)
---
* The way to win in the NFC is to play decently and have shades of superior effort even in a ten minute burst -- helps to have a good defense as well, which the Giants do have. Heck, even the Green Bay back-up had a credible shot until late in the 4th Quarter. Thus, either the Cardinals (is this the game we show up or the game we don't?) or Vikings (it's Thanksgiving, let's suddenly go on a run!) will probably get the last Wild Card spot.
** It is almost silly to say much about a :45 drive, pushed back by unsportmanlike penalty calls by the aggravated Ravens defense, but it might have been better to somehow make the desperation toss before the time out. It is true that they sometimes are intercepted -- end of game -- but if not, they do sometimes get you close enough to the goal line to hope.
I have seen the wrong half of two Giants games. The first half of the Giants/Eagles game (second edition) wasn't always pretty, but it ended on a decent 17 all note. And, thereafter, they fell apart. This time, after the Jets (unfavored) finished off the Dolphins with much time to spare (40-13), the Giants struggled vs. the Bears. Even after I left to see Enchanted, they went down 16-7. The late comeback needs to be caught on NFL Network replay. [Games aren't listed yet on my on t.v. directory, but this should be one of them]*
Meanwhile, I'm no fan of the loser Ravens. They beat the Giants in the Super Bowl, helped by a questionable call (yeah, they beat them good, but the call was a turning point). They also -- in a game I actually travelled to see -- beat the Jets to help clinch their losing season. The Jets that year (under that old QB, Vinny T. ... wonder what happened to him) did self-destruct in various ways, but the Ravens helped. And, they are known to have an attitude problem, partially from their defense minded nature that at times looks like bullying.
But, I don't like NE more -- I'm tired of them; once, I actually rooted for them vs. St. Louis, but the bloom is gone. It's time for them to lose a damn game. The Ravens, the second team in the row favored to lose by about 20, did the Eagles one better -- they were actually AHEAD late. 24-20. Now, the Pats had time outs, and getting the ball back would not necessarily end the game. But, it would have been close. Especially, after a second chance by penalty still made it fourth and medium in the red zone. Holding! First and goal! TD! Desperation toss stops at the 2.** The [expletive deleted] win again.
Way to choke! Now, it's up to Pittsburgh. [The last game is vs. the Giants, who hopefully will not be playing for anything much. They have a credible shot, but I rather not put my trust in them. I know them a bit too well.] The odds makers should learn -- at least until the Jets and Miami play them -- and NE will want to finally not have to bite their nails on the sideline late. If they actually do that any more, especially after the last two games. OTOH, the Steelers actually offensively (their defense, I don't know, but these two games should give them ideas) have a shot. But, they too have been known to choke ... admittedly, against bad teams. Grrr.
Anyway, Enchanted, which I talked about here before watching, is a charming movie. I especially liked the music numbers -- both the animated one and the two life action versions. The story of a fairy tale princess coming to NYC has a great lead in Amy Adams, a playful tone that pretty much holds up to the end (the serious moments mostly work too) and the criticism here about the bit of consumerism is well answered by the comments at the end of that article. See also my comments in the previous link; as to three year old brides, another comment rightly pointed out the example of first communion veils.
The movie does have a few lulls and Patrick Dempsey (playing his serious minded lawyer type a bit too well -- he is simply dull) and Susan Sarandon (evil stepmother; the inconvenient "other woman" has a happy ending here, but the evil stepmother is treated rather blandly by the numbers) do not (or are not given much to) do much with their roles. One review notes the first thirty minutes (much spent in the animated world) is where much of the energy lies -- since the second music number comes after that, I think this isn't quite right on that point alone. Anyway, overall it's a charming movie, and a nice respite from some more serious fare.
Some might get a bit disgusted (as the song itself said) "vermin" helping Giselle to clean the apartment, but hey, there were only some roaches here. Cf. Joe's Apartment. (The movie!)
---
* The way to win in the NFC is to play decently and have shades of superior effort even in a ten minute burst -- helps to have a good defense as well, which the Giants do have. Heck, even the Green Bay back-up had a credible shot until late in the 4th Quarter. Thus, either the Cardinals (is this the game we show up or the game we don't?) or Vikings (it's Thanksgiving, let's suddenly go on a run!) will probably get the last Wild Card spot.
** It is almost silly to say much about a :45 drive, pushed back by unsportmanlike penalty calls by the aggravated Ravens defense, but it might have been better to somehow make the desperation toss before the time out. It is true that they sometimes are intercepted -- end of game -- but if not, they do sometimes get you close enough to the goal line to hope.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
"a matter of analytical accouchement than precedential accretion"
And Also: The idea that requiring the Yanks give up Phil Hughes in a trade for Santana is somehow debatable seems silly -- the Twins are giving up an elite pitcher. Getting a mostly untested Ian Hughes in return does not seem enough, does it? Hughes has been only somewhat tested as it is, and Santana is still quite young. Meanwhile, not too upset about the Milledge deal. The GM noted teams weren't really interested in him as to obtaining top pitching and the like. And, he hasn't shown much yet. The Mets also got two decent ML players in return. Maybe, he will be great in the future. Who knows? Give me a good starter and reliever, that's my biggest concern.
Interesting California case flagged by my weekly Findlaw listing of cases received by its useful mailing lists. The "analytical accouchement than precedential accretion" bit called to mind the much riduculed "peneumbra" and "emanations" bit from Griswold, even if its basic principle (a true security of constitutional rights includes security of things not expressly listed, just like an outlying fence protects a home) is sound. It is almost hard to believe that wasn't used for some verbal effect.
But, aside from that, the case itself puts forth an important principle of federalism. It underlines that concept is not just some conservative excuse for backward thinking, though it is quite true that the consistent federalist tends to be hard to find. (Some want to use it for liberal ends -- consider Justice Brennan citing the idea of state constitutions of broader reach than the more conservative views of the post-Warren Supreme Court -- but often not when conservative results are likely.) As noted here:
The case involved a motorist in California involved a traffic violation after which a small amount of marijuana was found in his possession. This was seized, but it later it was found that he was authorized by state law to have it for medicinal reasons. The police did not want to give it back to him because federal law does not allow such an exception. But, especially because its claim of concern of liability was unlikely in practice (immunity tends to apply), this was not controlling.*
States do not have a general obligation to enforce federal law that does not particularly "preempt" state allowance of the conduct in question. If I assault someone in a post office, the state in which this crime takes place might very well in various ways assist the feds in catching and prosecuting me. For instance, perhaps if I am seen at a certain location, and state authorities in some matter learns about it. However, the state is under no obligation to help, or seize evidence to bring me to justice. Past cases also prohibits the feds from forcing them to do so (e.g., Printz v. U.S.," commandeering"). As the court here noted: "The California courts long ago recognized that state courts do not enforce the federal criminal statutes."
States are not just subdivisions of the federal government akin to counties in states, which themselves often are given broad discretion. The principle is particularly important when dealing with disputed points. This was seen in the slavery context. Prigg v. Pennsylvania held states could not be forced to assist in the return of fugitive slaves, leading to the Compromise of 1850 in part putting in place a federal regime, involving federal commissioners. Ditto in more recent times, including the regulation of medicine (thus the federal "partial birth" abortion was targeted in the recent Cato Supreme Court Review collection on federalist grounds).
It is quite true that Gonzales v. Raich (dubiously) upheld the right of the federal government to arrest the person in question. The opinion here cited Justice Thomas' dissent to augment how the actions here had "no impact" on such enforcement. True or not, the majority thought differently. It might be not "likely," but federal prosecution for small possession is possible. The case was after all about the right to own small amounts of marijuana for medicinal use. This was deemed to affect interstate commerce enough to come within congressional power. So, if the California court is right here, the reason has to be at least somewhat broader.
Simply put, if the feds want to enforce their dubious policy, they have to do so without expecting police officials in more friendly states to help them. States might very well on their own decide not to allow medicinal marijuana in part because they figure federal policy would make it hazardous. [In practice, without local assistance, law enforced from afar is much weaker. But, in various cases, it has bite. Angela Raich found that out as did other unfortunates.] Or, the feds might use the power of the purse or some other means to encourage such involvement.
All the same, states can still not enable various federal policies they oppose. To cite Justice Brandeis, they can be laboratories. Such discretion might in various ways not be free of restraint. The federal government has broad powers that touch upon many local matters. But quite often locals have real discretion, especially as applied to everyday effect. And, as a result, can call attention to and limit the harm (in some cases, the benefits) of controversial policies.
"By complying with the trial court’s order, the Garden Grove police will actually be facilitating a primary principle of federalism, which is to allow the states to innovate in areas bearing on the health and well-being of their citizens."
---
* The fact that the police was probably not going to be liable made the very standing of local authorities (the state and local authorities were on separate sides here; cf: Romer v. Evans, involving a more conservative state policy as to homosexuals after local areas put into place a more liberal policy). Nonetheless, though some dispute over the proper resolution over the issue was cited, the court took a pragmatic stance here. The matter was important and "here it appears quite likely the City will not be able to obtain judicial review of the trial court’s order unless it is afforded standing in this proceeding."
Cf. Use of standing to keep federal surveillance methods from court scrutiny. See also, this link to a discussion of FISA and its recent progeny from an insider. I particularly think this is a fundamental point:
[see also, my comment there]
We confront here the facially anomalous request that we approve state confiscation of a substance which is legal in the circumstances under which it was possessed. This request is terra incognita, as will be most of the many confusing aspects of the current tension between California marijuana laws and those of the federal government. Our conclusions are therefore more a matter of analytical accouchement than precedential accretion. But we are convinced by the Attorney General’s argument that governmental subdivisions of the state are bound by the state’s laws in this instance and must return materials the state considers legally possessed. We are persuaded due process will allow nothing less. Accordingly, we deny the City’s petition.
Interesting California case flagged by my weekly Findlaw listing of cases received by its useful mailing lists. The "analytical accouchement than precedential accretion" bit called to mind the much riduculed "peneumbra" and "emanations" bit from Griswold, even if its basic principle (a true security of constitutional rights includes security of things not expressly listed, just like an outlying fence protects a home) is sound. It is almost hard to believe that wasn't used for some verbal effect.
But, aside from that, the case itself puts forth an important principle of federalism. It underlines that concept is not just some conservative excuse for backward thinking, though it is quite true that the consistent federalist tends to be hard to find. (Some want to use it for liberal ends -- consider Justice Brennan citing the idea of state constitutions of broader reach than the more conservative views of the post-Warren Supreme Court -- but often not when conservative results are likely.) As noted here:
By complying with the trial court’s order, the Garden Grove police will actually be facilitating a primary principle of federalism, which is to allow the states to innovate in areas bearing on the health and well-being of their citizens.
The case involved a motorist in California involved a traffic violation after which a small amount of marijuana was found in his possession. This was seized, but it later it was found that he was authorized by state law to have it for medicinal reasons. The police did not want to give it back to him because federal law does not allow such an exception. But, especially because its claim of concern of liability was unlikely in practice (immunity tends to apply), this was not controlling.*
States do not have a general obligation to enforce federal law that does not particularly "preempt" state allowance of the conduct in question. If I assault someone in a post office, the state in which this crime takes place might very well in various ways assist the feds in catching and prosecuting me. For instance, perhaps if I am seen at a certain location, and state authorities in some matter learns about it. However, the state is under no obligation to help, or seize evidence to bring me to justice. Past cases also prohibits the feds from forcing them to do so (e.g., Printz v. U.S.," commandeering"). As the court here noted: "The California courts long ago recognized that state courts do not enforce the federal criminal statutes."
States are not just subdivisions of the federal government akin to counties in states, which themselves often are given broad discretion. The principle is particularly important when dealing with disputed points. This was seen in the slavery context. Prigg v. Pennsylvania held states could not be forced to assist in the return of fugitive slaves, leading to the Compromise of 1850 in part putting in place a federal regime, involving federal commissioners. Ditto in more recent times, including the regulation of medicine (thus the federal "partial birth" abortion was targeted in the recent Cato Supreme Court Review collection on federalist grounds).
It is quite true that Gonzales v. Raich (dubiously) upheld the right of the federal government to arrest the person in question. The opinion here cited Justice Thomas' dissent to augment how the actions here had "no impact" on such enforcement. True or not, the majority thought differently. It might be not "likely," but federal prosecution for small possession is possible. The case was after all about the right to own small amounts of marijuana for medicinal use. This was deemed to affect interstate commerce enough to come within congressional power. So, if the California court is right here, the reason has to be at least somewhat broader.
Simply put, if the feds want to enforce their dubious policy, they have to do so without expecting police officials in more friendly states to help them. States might very well on their own decide not to allow medicinal marijuana in part because they figure federal policy would make it hazardous. [In practice, without local assistance, law enforced from afar is much weaker. But, in various cases, it has bite. Angela Raich found that out as did other unfortunates.] Or, the feds might use the power of the purse or some other means to encourage such involvement.
All the same, states can still not enable various federal policies they oppose. To cite Justice Brandeis, they can be laboratories. Such discretion might in various ways not be free of restraint. The federal government has broad powers that touch upon many local matters. But quite often locals have real discretion, especially as applied to everyday effect. And, as a result, can call attention to and limit the harm (in some cases, the benefits) of controversial policies.
"By complying with the trial court’s order, the Garden Grove police will actually be facilitating a primary principle of federalism, which is to allow the states to innovate in areas bearing on the health and well-being of their citizens."
---
* The fact that the police was probably not going to be liable made the very standing of local authorities (the state and local authorities were on separate sides here; cf: Romer v. Evans, involving a more conservative state policy as to homosexuals after local areas put into place a more liberal policy). Nonetheless, though some dispute over the proper resolution over the issue was cited, the court took a pragmatic stance here. The matter was important and "here it appears quite likely the City will not be able to obtain judicial review of the trial court’s order unless it is afforded standing in this proceeding."
Cf. Use of standing to keep federal surveillance methods from court scrutiny. See also, this link to a discussion of FISA and its recent progeny from an insider. I particularly think this is a fundamental point:
Like many competing American values, liberty and security converge in law. We strike the balance between them not only in the many particular statutes, orders, and policies of the government, but also in the ongoing process of Legislative, Executive, and Judicial action – and reaction – within the framework prescribed by the Constitution. Our national security is therefore cast, and continually recast, in the crucible of our legal system.
[see also, my comment there]
Friday, November 30, 2007
Not quite x 2
The Green Bay back-up QB became the latest "good job, not quite" example of lesser teams (and players) not quite beating their superior opponents. Miami, for instance, has several close defeats. Unclear if Brett, out early by injury, would have done better -- the defense hurt them early, and did not quite hold late. Meanwhile, as I thought, the glee from the right on the stem cell issue (Bush was right!) is exaggerated at best.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Letter Writing
And Also: In yesterday's debate, see TPM etc., Sen. McCain was shocked that Romney was iffy about waterboarding being torture. How about our new AG? Oh wait ... when enabling Bush, McCain -- his books on courage etc. aside -- suddenly gets a bit wishy-washy. And, is thus not a credible candidate.
Samara O'Shea [nice name], one of those lucky souls who are able to make a career out of writing, has a website in which she will write a letter for you. Since the fee is a bit much, it might be better to buy her new book, For the Love of Letters. Her goal:
The book itself is basically a how to, providing advice on how to write different types of letters (love, apology, business, for causes, etc.) with historical (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony) and personal examples. She provides down to earth advice that might not be revolutionary (one Amazon review was not impressed), but practical and done so in a pleasant but professional matter. The sample letters are both charming and fascinating. A good gift idea.
One example supplied involves a letter to the editor challenging Madonna's blithe comment that she doesn't care for media and doesn't read it ... this is a magazine interview by a media star. This reflects the author's interest is popular culture. Two things come to mind. One, my own letter [some time ago] to the NYT (Sunday A&E) on the value of television shows to promote knowledge in particular causes. Two, how media has again foreseen and reflected fact. This involves Sandra Day O'Connor, whose confirmation followed by a few years the play First Monday in October ... concerning the first women in the Supreme Court.
The connection was not made in the article I read about the matter, but Away from Her is a recent film that concerns "a man coping with the institutionalization of his wife because of Alzheimer's disease faces an epiphany when she transfers her affections to another man." The film, which I have not seen, received good reviews. It came to mind because of a story about Sandra Day O'Connor's husband also finding such a connection, but this time the news accounts underline she is glad that he has found happiness.
More evidence that fact and fiction is not always far apart.
Samara O'Shea [nice name], one of those lucky souls who are able to make a career out of writing, has a website in which she will write a letter for you. Since the fee is a bit much, it might be better to buy her new book, For the Love of Letters. Her goal:
And that is what I’d like you to take away from this book—an appreciation for how powerful your words are. How powerful our language is and how effective the two can be in tangible form. Letters instigate understanding, change, and closure. Letters are a chance for all of us to live well beyond our allotted years. They can and will affect the recipient, but what’s oftentimes greater (and more surprising) is the effect letters have on the writer—who may be coming face to face with his or her thoughts and feelings for the first time. Letters have been performing acts—both ordinary and extraordinary—for several hundred millennia and I’d like to make sure they continue to do so.
The book itself is basically a how to, providing advice on how to write different types of letters (love, apology, business, for causes, etc.) with historical (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony) and personal examples. She provides down to earth advice that might not be revolutionary (one Amazon review was not impressed), but practical and done so in a pleasant but professional matter. The sample letters are both charming and fascinating. A good gift idea.
One example supplied involves a letter to the editor challenging Madonna's blithe comment that she doesn't care for media and doesn't read it ... this is a magazine interview by a media star. This reflects the author's interest is popular culture. Two things come to mind. One, my own letter [some time ago] to the NYT (Sunday A&E) on the value of television shows to promote knowledge in particular causes. Two, how media has again foreseen and reflected fact. This involves Sandra Day O'Connor, whose confirmation followed by a few years the play First Monday in October ... concerning the first women in the Supreme Court.
The connection was not made in the article I read about the matter, but Away from Her is a recent film that concerns "a man coping with the institutionalization of his wife because of Alzheimer's disease faces an epiphany when she transfers her affections to another man." The film, which I have not seen, received good reviews. It came to mind because of a story about Sandra Day O'Connor's husband also finding such a connection, but this time the news accounts underline she is glad that he has found happiness.
More evidence that fact and fiction is not always far apart.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Football Quickie
How annoying. The Eagles had a good shot at beating unbeaten New England, but suddenly stopped scoring. Lost by a field goal. OTOH, it took the Steelers to the last minute to score a field goal vs. Miami, who didn't score at all. Good thing, since losing against the Jets (creamed on Thanksgiving) and Miami would be really sad. Meanwhile, the Giants lost bad (bound to happen at least once though some fans were horrified) to the also ran Vikings. And, Starting Out in the Evening was a good movie.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Good News
"New York City is on track to have fewer than 500 homicides this year ... this gives more credence to a suspicion I've had ... that the current low murder rates in this country ... probably make the whole concept of the TV police procedural unrealistic." Good news (but the image usually tended to be worse than the reality, which leads to some unfortunate social policy implications) and right as to cop shows. Those addresses on Law & Order tend to be fake too. And, the reasons are complex ... though Mayor Rudy will want you to think it's all him. (Hint: Crime dropped nation-wide).
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Constitutional Issues
Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Supremes have decided to grant a hearing to decide upon the D.C. case in which the circuit court -- first time ever for a federal court -- struck down a local law as a breach of the Second Amendment. I have wrote a lot about the case here (comments), but a couple things stand out.
First, they took the case, even though the circuit ruling left open the opportunity of various regulations. No major circuit split -- the Fifth Circuit supported an individual right but upheld the regulation involved -- is at stake. And, the issue is pretty controversial. As I noted in the comments, limiting some provision to D.C. is a bit iffy. Second, the wording of the question appears to make it almost like some sort of privacy case. If so, that might not be a bad thing.* Check the links for further discussion.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Virginia Senator Jim Webb think they have found a solution to the problem of unconstitutional recess appointments: every three or so business days during the Thanksgiving break, they will convene "pro forma" sessions of the Senate, lasting only a minute or two. (The schedule was announced by Senator Webb on Monday.) They think this will prevent the President from appointing officers during this intra-session adjournment.
The person is not sure they are in the clear, even if he thinks the President has abused the "recess" appointment process. Still, I appreciate the attempt. Bush not only had more appointments than Clinton, but did so in a more blatant manner in various cases. Anyway, an effort to make a point, challenge Bush and uphold some important constitutional principle is appreciated. And, as this previous liberal leaning Democrat who served deep in Texas noted, having guts is appreciated.**
The framers of the Declaration of Independence evidently believed that happiness could be achieved, putting its pursuit up there alongside the unalienable rights to life and liberty. Though governments since then have seen life and liberty as deserving of vigorous protection, for all the public policies aimed at increasing economic growth, people have been left to sort out their happiness.
An editorial piece in the NYT recently discussed the pursuit of happiness, a central fundamental right that has constitutional significance. Its focus on the importance of happiness, including in public policy formulation, is sound. Still, a couple dubious assumptions. Money is still an important part of happiness. And, the "pursuit" of happiness is the inalienable right. Happiness itself, well, we shall continue to pursue it.
Some level can be achieved, but we are fated to always lack some aspect of finally reaching the goal. 'Tis the nature of the animal and imperfect society. Interesting article in the paper, btw, on how changes in the law have made contraceptives more expensive on many college campuses. My own member of Congress has proposed a law to address the situation. The connection to the subject at hand can be imagined.
Happy Thanksgiving.
---
* Different cases put the Second Amendment among those that involve rights of individuals, but a steady theme (to cite a 1980 ruling) is that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'"
** Joe Conason btw suggests how even attempts that seem to let people off the hook or achieve only partial victories do a lot:
Those questions date back to McClellan's first remarks on the subject, when he famously said that the president would dismiss any official determined to be responsible for leaking Plame's identity. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement." Sworn testimony eventually proved that the leakers included Libby, Rove, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and McClellan's predecessor, former press secretary Ari Fleischer. The same raft of evidence also indicated that Cheney orchestrated Libby's leak to New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
IOW, the investigation -- investigations congressional Republicans tended to deem off the table -- brought much to light. That's not enough, but it's something.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Deterrence Red Herring
My stance on a NYT article on new evidence the death penalty might deter is akin to this one. [The article notes that proof here can be a dubious thing, but there probably is some net deterrence.] I get off the bus as to allowing it in "a very small number of crimes of such moral atrocity" even if that is "a suitable moral response." How are we supposed to do that equitably, especially with additional risk of arbitrary application? They also tend to be done by people where free will is particularly unclear, making societal execution dubious. If anything, deterrence -- murder in prison or in an escape -- might be a more just reason. Dubious still, but perhaps a bit less so.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
"Hill Stalemate"
And Also: My paper has a nice article on on the importance of teaching children the power of the "thank you" and gratitude overall.
Here is the Salon piece on the occupation funding bill referenced yesterday. The NY Daily News had a better framing of the situation, but still left out a key fact.* Is this really so hard? It would seem to me rather logical and obvious that what should be included in any account is the vote itself and the reason why said vote was not enough. The NY Daily News piece, a small one though it has a byline (aka not just "AP"), is entitled "Hill stalemate on war funding, troop pullbacks." [Kenneth Bazinet, who has gotten notice in the blogs etc. in the past, wrote the story. Cannot find a link.]
Now, though Rachel Maddow (Air America) appears not to realize that talking about an Iraq "war" instead of an "occupation" is controversial in some quarters -- she never raises the point to my knowledge on her show, though she is a popular left leaning guest commentator on the small screen, so should be aware of such stuff -- the use of "war" is fairly unnotable as such. So, the headline is a good start -- it gives you a sense of what is really happening, though not exactly. Why stalemate?
To some extent, it is Democrat failure, but the immediate cause is near total Republican unity (including in the House, where only a few stray ones -- finally including Christopher Shays [the much ballyhooed 'moderate' who all too often goes along for the ride vote time] -- supported the Dem proposal). And, the article did note the Senate Republicans "killed" (strong language, especially given the context) the "latest bill ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq." First sentence. A better article might remind that said troop withdrawals are required to take place by the end of next year, leaving tens of thousands there for some reasons all the same.
In dream land, therefore, it would be quite likely that the real responsibility would be the next administration (always can find some reason to delay a few months) and troops will be still stay to cause trouble. The good news -- dare to dream -- is that the Dems are now saying that if you don't take this proposal, we aren't going to give you any more funds to next year. This threat comes about six months too late, though it does underline that hey Congress has the power of the purse, and has to affirmatively okay such funding. No need of "60 votes" (crap anyway ... see the AG confirmation etc.) or "67 votes" for that. Remember, that there is enough funding now for current operations. It's something though, if they have the guts to keep it up.
[The article, strikingly, ends by noting that since the fighting began, Congress has appropriated more than $604 billion -- amazing given how the Iraq conflict was supposed to almost pay for itself -- for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be interesting to know how much of that was appropriated since January 2007. Hint: too much.]
Sen. Reid spoke of "The President and his enablers in Congress" being "afraid of being held accountable" ... so quoted the piece ... and this too is a great soundbite. Like George III ("he") of the Declaration of Independence fame, the President rightly is a suitable symbol of what is wrong these days. He is after all the PRESIDENT and the head of both the state and the Republican party. But, in both cases he is only the head ... he has lots of help. Or, as they say in the recovery movement, "enablers." Sen. Reid might not wish to dwell on the fact, but these include many Dems, including he himself in various instances.
For instance, Glenn Greenwald has focused on Sen. Feinstein and others, most recently those who can't bear to honor the Fourth Amendment. But, Reid himself helped, including by rushing the AG confirmation and by helping to let Bush Dog Dems to get off easy in their Bush friendly ways. And, that gets to the fact left out -- before the Senate Republicans killed the latest bill, what was the vote on the measure? Hint: a majority voted for it. This fact has to be underlined. The article (bottom half) did note that the Republicans used a procedural vote "to kill" (that word again) a measure that would start the withdrawal process in a month, and supply $50 million of funding in return.
[More here from TPM ... note how even there the true nature of what is going on was not fully expressed, surely not front and center. And, some comments are rightly pissed at it. This underlines how November 2006 was only the "end of the beginning" and a lot more has to be done to have a fully credible (a weak work in itself) government. Don't give me "you can do much worse" shit, okay? Some comments on a TPM piece on Edwards at first being hesitant to say that he would support HC if she was nominated -- realistically more fodder for the "she's the nominee, but we can't quite say that yet" meme -- did just that. Support HC in November, or get Rudy!! Ack!!!! We get this in November 2007?]
Still, the vote should be front and center, maybe even in the headline. Something like "Senate majority supports withdrawal, Republican block it." "Hill stalemate" spreads the blame around, which is only partially accurate. People should be reading their papers and noting while drinking their coffee: "hmm ... a majority of Congress wants to bring the boys home -- sort of seems time, huh? mess over there and with the holidays and all, makes you think -- but it says here the Republicans 'killed' the chance. Doesn't seem kosher, does it?" Fact is, many focus on the lede and only glance at the contents of the articles, especially on such a "stalemate" matter as depressing as this one.
This is how process -- here how a story is being told -- affects substance. It all ties together. See also, this important apparently "inside baseball" analysis of a review of the ethics of Bush's legal advisers failing to follow their obligations -- which were more than telling the administration what they wanted to hear. And, it reaffirms a basic point of mine -- the law is usually best upheld outsides of the courts.
---
* Opposite the article analyzed below are the usual quickie wire account pieces. One discusses some fake currency seized by federal officials featuring Ron Paul. The far right rather him than some of the typical ex-presidents on our (real) coins. This gave more fodder for the blogger doing good work underlining (since the press barely mentions Paul at all) that for those who wish to support a true maverick candidate, Ron Paul leaves something to be desired. His campaign denies any involvement but it is telling all the same, especially with the other background the blog supplies.
Here is the Salon piece on the occupation funding bill referenced yesterday. The NY Daily News had a better framing of the situation, but still left out a key fact.* Is this really so hard? It would seem to me rather logical and obvious that what should be included in any account is the vote itself and the reason why said vote was not enough. The NY Daily News piece, a small one though it has a byline (aka not just "AP"), is entitled "Hill stalemate on war funding, troop pullbacks." [Kenneth Bazinet, who has gotten notice in the blogs etc. in the past, wrote the story. Cannot find a link.]
Now, though Rachel Maddow (Air America) appears not to realize that talking about an Iraq "war" instead of an "occupation" is controversial in some quarters -- she never raises the point to my knowledge on her show, though she is a popular left leaning guest commentator on the small screen, so should be aware of such stuff -- the use of "war" is fairly unnotable as such. So, the headline is a good start -- it gives you a sense of what is really happening, though not exactly. Why stalemate?
To some extent, it is Democrat failure, but the immediate cause is near total Republican unity (including in the House, where only a few stray ones -- finally including Christopher Shays [the much ballyhooed 'moderate' who all too often goes along for the ride vote time] -- supported the Dem proposal). And, the article did note the Senate Republicans "killed" (strong language, especially given the context) the "latest bill ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq." First sentence. A better article might remind that said troop withdrawals are required to take place by the end of next year, leaving tens of thousands there for some reasons all the same.
In dream land, therefore, it would be quite likely that the real responsibility would be the next administration (always can find some reason to delay a few months) and troops will be still stay to cause trouble. The good news -- dare to dream -- is that the Dems are now saying that if you don't take this proposal, we aren't going to give you any more funds to next year. This threat comes about six months too late, though it does underline that hey Congress has the power of the purse, and has to affirmatively okay such funding. No need of "60 votes" (crap anyway ... see the AG confirmation etc.) or "67 votes" for that. Remember, that there is enough funding now for current operations. It's something though, if they have the guts to keep it up.
[The article, strikingly, ends by noting that since the fighting began, Congress has appropriated more than $604 billion -- amazing given how the Iraq conflict was supposed to almost pay for itself -- for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be interesting to know how much of that was appropriated since January 2007. Hint: too much.]
Sen. Reid spoke of "The President and his enablers in Congress" being "afraid of being held accountable" ... so quoted the piece ... and this too is a great soundbite. Like George III ("he") of the Declaration of Independence fame, the President rightly is a suitable symbol of what is wrong these days. He is after all the PRESIDENT and the head of both the state and the Republican party. But, in both cases he is only the head ... he has lots of help. Or, as they say in the recovery movement, "enablers." Sen. Reid might not wish to dwell on the fact, but these include many Dems, including he himself in various instances.
For instance, Glenn Greenwald has focused on Sen. Feinstein and others, most recently those who can't bear to honor the Fourth Amendment. But, Reid himself helped, including by rushing the AG confirmation and by helping to let Bush Dog Dems to get off easy in their Bush friendly ways. And, that gets to the fact left out -- before the Senate Republicans killed the latest bill, what was the vote on the measure? Hint: a majority voted for it. This fact has to be underlined. The article (bottom half) did note that the Republicans used a procedural vote "to kill" (that word again) a measure that would start the withdrawal process in a month, and supply $50 million of funding in return.
[More here from TPM ... note how even there the true nature of what is going on was not fully expressed, surely not front and center. And, some comments are rightly pissed at it. This underlines how November 2006 was only the "end of the beginning" and a lot more has to be done to have a fully credible (a weak work in itself) government. Don't give me "you can do much worse" shit, okay? Some comments on a TPM piece on Edwards at first being hesitant to say that he would support HC if she was nominated -- realistically more fodder for the "she's the nominee, but we can't quite say that yet" meme -- did just that. Support HC in November, or get Rudy!! Ack!!!! We get this in November 2007?]
Still, the vote should be front and center, maybe even in the headline. Something like "Senate majority supports withdrawal, Republican block it." "Hill stalemate" spreads the blame around, which is only partially accurate. People should be reading their papers and noting while drinking their coffee: "hmm ... a majority of Congress wants to bring the boys home -- sort of seems time, huh? mess over there and with the holidays and all, makes you think -- but it says here the Republicans 'killed' the chance. Doesn't seem kosher, does it?" Fact is, many focus on the lede and only glance at the contents of the articles, especially on such a "stalemate" matter as depressing as this one.
This is how process -- here how a story is being told -- affects substance. It all ties together. See also, this important apparently "inside baseball" analysis of a review of the ethics of Bush's legal advisers failing to follow their obligations -- which were more than telling the administration what they wanted to hear. And, it reaffirms a basic point of mine -- the law is usually best upheld outsides of the courts.
---
* Opposite the article analyzed below are the usual quickie wire account pieces. One discusses some fake currency seized by federal officials featuring Ron Paul. The far right rather him than some of the typical ex-presidents on our (real) coins. This gave more fodder for the blogger doing good work underlining (since the press barely mentions Paul at all) that for those who wish to support a true maverick candidate, Ron Paul leaves something to be desired. His campaign denies any involvement but it is telling all the same, especially with the other background the blog supplies.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Political Thoughts
And Also: A priest gets in trouble (legally) in a sex scandal ... involving adult females. BTW, I'm reading an interesting collection of vignettes entitled She Captains: Heroines and Hellions of the Sea by Joan Druett. Who knew there were interesting books in the 380s?
Some political comments ...
Charlie Brown Had A Better Shot At Kicking That Football: Another time when a minority in the Senate blocks a leaves something to be desired "restrain Bush on Iraq like a majority of the American public wants" bill passed by the House and supported by a majority of the Senate and we hear how "the Senate" (Salon even framed it that way) rejected it. Likewise, the Dems, even if over forty of them voted for the measure, refuse to force the minority to have a real filibuster -- you know, continual debate etc.
Thom Hartman was on Rachel Maddow yesterday noting the Dems are not really a party as such as a coalition. Strange how a certain portion (Blue Dogs) keep on getting disproportionate power ... again, not being forced to suffer even a wee bit for their minority stance. Maddow is on a "proud to be a liberal" kick this week. Sometimes, it is hard to be proud to be a Democrat. Foreign affairs and executive power is THE issue of the day. Let's see if the Senate chokes on FISA.
Obama: Open Left disputes how a Talking Points Memo piece framed the issue, but the overall point of the piece that various members of "the Left" are concerned with Sen. Obama is true enough. I sure am. The Paul Krugman piece today that is cited by OL reaffirms the point -- he wants to be above the fray, provide a middle ground, but sometimes the right path is not the average of the two sides. Since we have gone to far right on some issues, this is actually a bad way to approach the situation. And, some of his comments on religion -- as mentioned in the past -- concern me. Talk of "faith" as if this meant certain religious believers per se.
Debates: There has been a loads of debates, though honestly, I think a large portion of the population does not truly know this -- often they are on cable stations that blogs and such might frequent, but not so much the general voter. There also seems to be somewhat fewer Republican debates. And, now Media Matters suggests all these debates uh sorta don't even properly cover the key issues of the day:
Sometimes, there are questions from the audience -- not just about Hillary's jewelry choices (see link) -- dealing with personal experiences. I had one that hits upon an important issue in the next election, going back to the Krugman piece, since it will be an important economic factor in the upcoming years -- health insurance. I am having some minor dental work done, and even with insurance, it cost a good amount of money. Many who have very little or no savings would not be able to pay it.
This is a sad state of affairs. Any Democrat is likely to deal with such matters better than the likely Republican choice, but we can expect better than that. We can demand better than that.
Some political comments ...
Charlie Brown Had A Better Shot At Kicking That Football: Another time when a minority in the Senate blocks a leaves something to be desired "restrain Bush on Iraq like a majority of the American public wants" bill passed by the House and supported by a majority of the Senate and we hear how "the Senate" (Salon even framed it that way) rejected it. Likewise, the Dems, even if over forty of them voted for the measure, refuse to force the minority to have a real filibuster -- you know, continual debate etc.
Thom Hartman was on Rachel Maddow yesterday noting the Dems are not really a party as such as a coalition. Strange how a certain portion (Blue Dogs) keep on getting disproportionate power ... again, not being forced to suffer even a wee bit for their minority stance. Maddow is on a "proud to be a liberal" kick this week. Sometimes, it is hard to be proud to be a Democrat. Foreign affairs and executive power is THE issue of the day. Let's see if the Senate chokes on FISA.
Obama: Open Left disputes how a Talking Points Memo piece framed the issue, but the overall point of the piece that various members of "the Left" are concerned with Sen. Obama is true enough. I sure am. The Paul Krugman piece today that is cited by OL reaffirms the point -- he wants to be above the fray, provide a middle ground, but sometimes the right path is not the average of the two sides. Since we have gone to far right on some issues, this is actually a bad way to approach the situation. And, some of his comments on religion -- as mentioned in the past -- concern me. Talk of "faith" as if this meant certain religious believers per se.
Debates: There has been a loads of debates, though honestly, I think a large portion of the population does not truly know this -- often they are on cable stations that blogs and such might frequent, but not so much the general voter. There also seems to be somewhat fewer Republican debates. And, now Media Matters suggests all these debates uh sorta don't even properly cover the key issues of the day:
Through 17 debates this year, roughly 1,500 questions have been asked of the two parties' presidential candidates. But only a small handful of questions have touched on the candidates' views on executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil liberties concerns.
Sometimes, there are questions from the audience -- not just about Hillary's jewelry choices (see link) -- dealing with personal experiences. I had one that hits upon an important issue in the next election, going back to the Krugman piece, since it will be an important economic factor in the upcoming years -- health insurance. I am having some minor dental work done, and even with insurance, it cost a good amount of money. Many who have very little or no savings would not be able to pay it.
This is a sad state of affairs. Any Democrat is likely to deal with such matters better than the likely Republican choice, but we can expect better than that. We can demand better than that.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sports Stuff
And Also: Marci Hamilton (a conservative), in an essay discussing an opt-out lawsuit involving the morning after pill notes that the controversy "is not a case of religion versus secularism, but rather, as usual in the United States, believer versus believer." Very true. The law in question requires a pharmacy to have at least one person without a problem supplying the stuff on call, even though some think they should allow referrals to a different pharmacy. The latter technique is my ideal plan, but it probably would run into supply problems in many areas. We are talking about time sensitive drugs here as well.
Venus Williams was on Dave a month or so ago promoting her new sports line, EleVen, the name coming from her childhood address. The low price reflects her humble origins, and is a nice expansion of another athlete who promotes an under $20 sneaker. Too many teens are told "stylish" means spending more than they have for overpriced stuff. She should mix in the cheap prices with a "use some of the money you saved for 'x' (charity, college, mom, etc.)."
On the other hand, A-Rod will get his big paycheck ... $275, that is, from the Yanks for a ten year contract. So, it seems. The Yanks appeared to say that if he tested free agency, or tried to opt out of his contract, they would be done with him. But, such was not the case apparently, and now we are stuck with him. Well, that is how I look upon it, even if he is the "best player out there," etc. I'm tired of all these superstars on the team and recall the last time the Yanks got to the World Series, it was with another guy at third. Besides, he comes off as a jerk.
And, in the world of football, I caught the NFL Network replay of the Colts/Chargers game. The replay is an edited version with after game comments and stats sprinkled in. Two useful things mentioned. First, a NFL official explained why the Colts were charged with a false start at the key 4th Down play at the end. Second, Tony Dungy noted that after the call, he called a time out mostly for "spite," to argue with the officials. He noted that this was a problem, since the time out turned out to be rather important -- it would have gave the team almost forty more seconds to get into field goal range.
Of course, he thought -- along with most people -- that the field goal would be made. Like a key time about a decade ago when a never miss kicker missed, leading to the Falcons getting to the Super Bowl (where they were blown out), we live to see assumptions like that fall. Not quite the case with A-Rod, except that his agent didn't quite get the chance to be totally greedy.
Like all the clothes at Steve & Barry's, everything in the Eleven line costs under $20. There are graphic T-shirts, down jackets, jeans, sport socks, visors and gym bags in all shapes and colors.
-- Venus Williams' affordable line of sports clothing hits store
Venus Williams was on Dave a month or so ago promoting her new sports line, EleVen, the name coming from her childhood address. The low price reflects her humble origins, and is a nice expansion of another athlete who promotes an under $20 sneaker. Too many teens are told "stylish" means spending more than they have for overpriced stuff. She should mix in the cheap prices with a "use some of the money you saved for 'x' (charity, college, mom, etc.)."
On the other hand, A-Rod will get his big paycheck ... $275, that is, from the Yanks for a ten year contract. So, it seems. The Yanks appeared to say that if he tested free agency, or tried to opt out of his contract, they would be done with him. But, such was not the case apparently, and now we are stuck with him. Well, that is how I look upon it, even if he is the "best player out there," etc. I'm tired of all these superstars on the team and recall the last time the Yanks got to the World Series, it was with another guy at third. Besides, he comes off as a jerk.
And, in the world of football, I caught the NFL Network replay of the Colts/Chargers game. The replay is an edited version with after game comments and stats sprinkled in. Two useful things mentioned. First, a NFL official explained why the Colts were charged with a false start at the key 4th Down play at the end. Second, Tony Dungy noted that after the call, he called a time out mostly for "spite," to argue with the officials. He noted that this was a problem, since the time out turned out to be rather important -- it would have gave the team almost forty more seconds to get into field goal range.
Of course, he thought -- along with most people -- that the field goal would be made. Like a key time about a decade ago when a never miss kicker missed, leading to the Falcons getting to the Super Bowl (where they were blown out), we live to see assumptions like that fall. Not quite the case with A-Rod, except that his agent didn't quite get the chance to be totally greedy.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Not Playing It Safe
TMQ, see blogroll, repeatedly is annoyed when loser teams play it safe, going for meaningless field goals instead of risking it for seven. Well, SF risked it at least twice last night, leading to a 24-0 score, instead of something like 24-6. Don't see the praise ... do see his usual off-topic blather. This time, in part, it's anti-Gore, including Gore getting a Nobel for "hectoring." Potshot at his 2000 election fight as well. Curious why I haven't been reading him this lately.
Ron Paul
I like Glenn Greenwald, but as noted here, he seems to have drunk too much of the kool aid on Ron Paul. It is telling, btw, that the guy caucuses with the Republicans. But, whenever someone calls like Thom Hartmann or whatever, and says "hey, Ron Paul sounds like a good choice," there is a lot of ammo. His "states rights" stance in particular -- flag burning? Well, the feds shouldn't ban it ... states? Sure, if they want. [He's also "pro-life." And, other conservative stuff ... check the link.] No, that isn't how "libertarian" works.