About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Twins Catch Up One More Time
Tigers let a division lead go a few years back but went to the WS via the wild card route. This time they didn't have that cushion and lost it all in the 163rd when the closer was stretched a bit too long. And, the Twins get the Yanks. Hey -- they will take it.
Same Sex Marriage Book Review
And Also: Letterman, some critics notwithstanding, showed last night that he is something of an equal opportunity jokester. He made himself the subject of jokes while also having some serious moments, including apologizing to women in his staff for the negative attention and noting how much he hurt his wife. I think he came off well.
Earlier, I referenced Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America, a short collection (160 pages plus notes etc.) of essays on the topics by experts in the field. This volume was written a decade after William N Eskridge's still valuable "case" in 1996. The more recent volume provides more up to date case law, two chapters of somewhat tedious summary of psychological data, and a useful chapter on the development of state privacy law.
The psychological data is tedious in part because it basically reads like the abstract form of various studies, studies that bottom line (putting aside the somewhat limited data, especially as to gay fathers) say that there really is not much of a difference between same sex and heterosexual parenting.* The children of homosexuals might have to deal with some more prejudice, but the same is the case of the children of various disfavored heterosexual groups. Likewise, any number of the myriad of forms of parenting these days (single parent, divorced, et. al.) are as likely to affect children. Ditto various problem cases outside of sexuality itself.
Any difference tends to be positive, such as some children of lesbian parents being more open-minded, open about their emotions, and (for girls at least) more willing to experiment with same sex relationships. Child molestation is not a problem either, both given nearly no molesters are women of any sexuality, and most are heterosexual males. This underlines (in a useful chapter) why state courts (putting aside the special case of Florida) generally did not consider homosexuality itself a barrier to custody or adoption, though it might be seen in a negative light in various cases.
The book starts off with a quick summary of sexual privacy cases, listing the usual suspects from Griswold on, but lacking in not providing a more complete summary that could have equally been done in a few pages. The chapter on the "evolution of state law toward sexual privacy" provides a very useful reminder that the evolution is not just "the work of 'a few activist judges.'" [State constitutional traditions overall deserve more attention that they generally receive.] The reminder, from someone who was there, of the bad old days of divorce law underlines the point.
We also get a summary of the last few decades of the law of marriage in this country [Eskridge provides a more complete look at all the aspects here, including those in debt or in prison] and internationally. It is striking how much changed, even since Eskridge wrote his volume. One chapter provides an extended look at the many state and federal legal privileges that married couples receive. The chapter would have benefited from a bit more discussion on the obligations as well, suggested by a discussion of a possible divorce case where a husband leaving his spouse for another would have various responsibilities.
The mostly all business (with some comments here and there pointing out the sentiments of the authors) ended with a heartfelt message promoting extending freedom of marriage to same-sex couples:
The book underlines it is not just fair but pragmatically useful. The ability of homosexuals in Florida to adopt has inhibited some to do so even after they were long term foster caregivers to special needs children. David Brooks was cited too; that often criticized conservative in effect thinks homosexuals should have the duty to marry since marriage brings forth various benefits to society as a whole. [I talked about the op-ed here.] Marriage is both a freedom and a responsibility, as many things tend to be. Prejudice does not just burden those who wish to marry, but society as a whole.
It tends to do that a lot.
---
* This applies to sex roles as well, even if the parent(s) themselves try to be more sexually neutral about things. It highlights the important biological and societal drives here, though more liberal attitudes appears to affect things somewhat. Still, as noted above, even if some girls experiment more, actual lesbian behavior in the long term is not much different even here. OTOH, given biological connections, it should be somewhat if the biological parent is homosexual.
One interesting aspect is that there is a tendency for the children to differentiate between lesbian couples when it comes to parenting, the "social" mother (non-biological) often taking stereotypically paternal roles such as rough & tumble play. Or, at the very least, there is a clear division of roles played by each parent. It would be interesting to know how far this is a result of natural affinity, negotiation given the situation of the couple, or influenced by societal norms. But, either way, in a fashion, even same sex couples are not just "two peas in a pod" so to speak.
Something comparable might be the case for gay couples / boys, though the research is thinner and experimenting for boys is seen in a more negative light. The different roles lesbian mothers play might also be the best of both worlds, since even the non-biological or more "feminine" party overall appear to know more about parenting overall than even heterosexual fathers. Of course, all of these are just rough median descriptions, and people tend to come in various shades.
Earlier, I referenced Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America, a short collection (160 pages plus notes etc.) of essays on the topics by experts in the field. This volume was written a decade after William N Eskridge's still valuable "case" in 1996. The more recent volume provides more up to date case law, two chapters of somewhat tedious summary of psychological data, and a useful chapter on the development of state privacy law.
The psychological data is tedious in part because it basically reads like the abstract form of various studies, studies that bottom line (putting aside the somewhat limited data, especially as to gay fathers) say that there really is not much of a difference between same sex and heterosexual parenting.* The children of homosexuals might have to deal with some more prejudice, but the same is the case of the children of various disfavored heterosexual groups. Likewise, any number of the myriad of forms of parenting these days (single parent, divorced, et. al.) are as likely to affect children. Ditto various problem cases outside of sexuality itself.
Any difference tends to be positive, such as some children of lesbian parents being more open-minded, open about their emotions, and (for girls at least) more willing to experiment with same sex relationships. Child molestation is not a problem either, both given nearly no molesters are women of any sexuality, and most are heterosexual males. This underlines (in a useful chapter) why state courts (putting aside the special case of Florida) generally did not consider homosexuality itself a barrier to custody or adoption, though it might be seen in a negative light in various cases.
The book starts off with a quick summary of sexual privacy cases, listing the usual suspects from Griswold on, but lacking in not providing a more complete summary that could have equally been done in a few pages. The chapter on the "evolution of state law toward sexual privacy" provides a very useful reminder that the evolution is not just "the work of 'a few activist judges.'" [State constitutional traditions overall deserve more attention that they generally receive.] The reminder, from someone who was there, of the bad old days of divorce law underlines the point.
We also get a summary of the last few decades of the law of marriage in this country [Eskridge provides a more complete look at all the aspects here, including those in debt or in prison] and internationally. It is striking how much changed, even since Eskridge wrote his volume. One chapter provides an extended look at the many state and federal legal privileges that married couples receive. The chapter would have benefited from a bit more discussion on the obligations as well, suggested by a discussion of a possible divorce case where a husband leaving his spouse for another would have various responsibilities.
The mostly all business (with some comments here and there pointing out the sentiments of the authors) ended with a heartfelt message promoting extending freedom of marriage to same-sex couples:
Isn't it fair to do so?
Isn't it fair to do so now?
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
The book underlines it is not just fair but pragmatically useful. The ability of homosexuals in Florida to adopt has inhibited some to do so even after they were long term foster caregivers to special needs children. David Brooks was cited too; that often criticized conservative in effect thinks homosexuals should have the duty to marry since marriage brings forth various benefits to society as a whole. [I talked about the op-ed here.] Marriage is both a freedom and a responsibility, as many things tend to be. Prejudice does not just burden those who wish to marry, but society as a whole.
It tends to do that a lot.
---
* This applies to sex roles as well, even if the parent(s) themselves try to be more sexually neutral about things. It highlights the important biological and societal drives here, though more liberal attitudes appears to affect things somewhat. Still, as noted above, even if some girls experiment more, actual lesbian behavior in the long term is not much different even here. OTOH, given biological connections, it should be somewhat if the biological parent is homosexual.
One interesting aspect is that there is a tendency for the children to differentiate between lesbian couples when it comes to parenting, the "social" mother (non-biological) often taking stereotypically paternal roles such as rough & tumble play. Or, at the very least, there is a clear division of roles played by each parent. It would be interesting to know how far this is a result of natural affinity, negotiation given the situation of the couple, or influenced by societal norms. But, either way, in a fashion, even same sex couples are not just "two peas in a pod" so to speak.
Something comparable might be the case for gay couples / boys, though the research is thinner and experimenting for boys is seen in a more negative light. The different roles lesbian mothers play might also be the best of both worlds, since even the non-biological or more "feminine" party overall appear to know more about parenting overall than even heterosexual fathers. Of course, all of these are just rough median descriptions, and people tend to come in various shades.
First Monday ...
The first few entries were fairly standard, but C-SPAN's Supreme Court Week is a valuable resource, especially the upcoming interviews of each justice. SCOTUSBlog cites various interesting articles on Sotomayor, empathy, et. al. The animal cruelty free speech case also is summarized. I agree with the majority's apparent sentiments.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Baseball
And Also: I am reading one of those good shorter works that provide a thumbnail's sketch on topics that allow for a broad knowledge base. The Net et. al. makes long books somewhat hard to handle these days. The book reminds me, per a recent post, that state privacy moves (including state constitutions) is another reason why the right to privacy is not dead yet.
[Further Thoughts: Reading some NY Daily News coverage, the coaches let go probably are no great loss, though really the buck stops above. Also, missed this bit of Keith Hernandez self-aggrandizement. The columnist at times is a bit of a clown, but on this point, he is on the money.]
After Santana went on the DL, Nelson Figueroa basically took his role: good starting pitching with little support. He even tossed in a Santana-like final effort, tossing a complete game shutout (two in one month's time by Mets pitching -- you take what good news you can get) though this 162nd game (unlike in the Midwest) did not count. On that front, I call foul. Why isn't winning the season series the tiebreaker? Last year, the Twins lost a 1-0 tiebreaker on the road, after winning the season series. This time at least a coin flip didn't decide matters, but again, if they lose they still would be screwed. Winning the series should mean something more than home field advantage, though it means more for the Twins than some others.
Well, the Mets are perfect in October this year. And, planning to get rid of one or more coaches. Though the defense and some baserunning moves left something to be desired, this is basically pointless. The general manager or manager (more so the former) is who needs to go. And, bring on a decent midrange starter (Nelson and company showed why Perez was a bad call -- someone, even if imperfect, was out there to fill that role, someone not a mental case; the injury just added insult) and a good hitting left fielder. Pagan can stay in as the fourth and Daniel Murphy can stay as first baseman (maybe injury boy can be brought back, if he's cheap enough) -- he's imperfect but has some grit and potential.
After all, I doubt if his replacement would overall add more to the team, especially if money issues will arise. If there is limited funds, it is better to spend a bit more for that extra starter. Oh, I would love it if Perez would be gone, but his contract is probably too large. You can just hope one of the two remaining seasons will be good (with the usual stress) and the other one adequate at least. I also fear that there is some chance he will be kept and Maine let go. Maine was hurt this year, but ended on a decent note. He has problems throwing too many pitches, but has a good chance of being a decent midrange starter without Perez's drama. I also like his grit and mentality -- reminds me of Rick Reed, who helped them get to the playoffs a decade ago.
I still like the team. They screwed over the fans, even with the injuries, with bad play. Won't forget that either -- injuries will be used as an excuse, but let's be honest Mets fans: would this team really have beat out the Rockies (or Phillies) even if most of the players didn't get hurt? Another twenty wins would not have done it. Anyways, I'm rooting for the West this postseason, since the AL Central is a tad bit of a long shot. After all, no matter who makes it, one win might be considered a moral victory in the first round. And, the remainders leave various levels of distaste in my mouth, the fact they might be favored only hurting matters.
Well, Mets announcer/veteran Ron Darling will be on the TBS team. A friendly face helps and that announcer team's tendency to be overly neutral actually works on that front. And, without Gary or Keith, there won't be an OD of pointless trivia. Hey, I'm game for that stuff, surely I am, but for non-baseball nerds, it gets a tad much after awhile. Still, Gary Cohen clearly is in his dream job.
[Further Thoughts: Reading some NY Daily News coverage, the coaches let go probably are no great loss, though really the buck stops above. Also, missed this bit of Keith Hernandez self-aggrandizement. The columnist at times is a bit of a clown, but on this point, he is on the money.]
After Santana went on the DL, Nelson Figueroa basically took his role: good starting pitching with little support. He even tossed in a Santana-like final effort, tossing a complete game shutout (two in one month's time by Mets pitching -- you take what good news you can get) though this 162nd game (unlike in the Midwest) did not count. On that front, I call foul. Why isn't winning the season series the tiebreaker? Last year, the Twins lost a 1-0 tiebreaker on the road, after winning the season series. This time at least a coin flip didn't decide matters, but again, if they lose they still would be screwed. Winning the series should mean something more than home field advantage, though it means more for the Twins than some others.
Well, the Mets are perfect in October this year. And, planning to get rid of one or more coaches. Though the defense and some baserunning moves left something to be desired, this is basically pointless. The general manager or manager (more so the former) is who needs to go. And, bring on a decent midrange starter (Nelson and company showed why Perez was a bad call -- someone, even if imperfect, was out there to fill that role, someone not a mental case; the injury just added insult) and a good hitting left fielder. Pagan can stay in as the fourth and Daniel Murphy can stay as first baseman (maybe injury boy can be brought back, if he's cheap enough) -- he's imperfect but has some grit and potential.
After all, I doubt if his replacement would overall add more to the team, especially if money issues will arise. If there is limited funds, it is better to spend a bit more for that extra starter. Oh, I would love it if Perez would be gone, but his contract is probably too large. You can just hope one of the two remaining seasons will be good (with the usual stress) and the other one adequate at least. I also fear that there is some chance he will be kept and Maine let go. Maine was hurt this year, but ended on a decent note. He has problems throwing too many pitches, but has a good chance of being a decent midrange starter without Perez's drama. I also like his grit and mentality -- reminds me of Rick Reed, who helped them get to the playoffs a decade ago.
I still like the team. They screwed over the fans, even with the injuries, with bad play. Won't forget that either -- injuries will be used as an excuse, but let's be honest Mets fans: would this team really have beat out the Rockies (or Phillies) even if most of the players didn't get hurt? Another twenty wins would not have done it. Anyways, I'm rooting for the West this postseason, since the AL Central is a tad bit of a long shot. After all, no matter who makes it, one win might be considered a moral victory in the first round. And, the remainders leave various levels of distaste in my mouth, the fact they might be favored only hurting matters.
Well, Mets announcer/veteran Ron Darling will be on the TBS team. A friendly face helps and that announcer team's tendency to be overly neutral actually works on that front. And, without Gary or Keith, there won't be an OD of pointless trivia. Hey, I'm game for that stuff, surely I am, but for non-baseball nerds, it gets a tad much after awhile. Still, Gary Cohen clearly is in his dream job.
Mets Manage 70
Five extra inning games. Worst team wins seven (Braves upset -- manager wanted second place), ending in the 15th. Mets manage to have a series sweep & a winning home record. And, the season isn't over yet. Oh, Giants QB might be hurt & Jets lost a game.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Lenore Skenazy
And Also: I saw Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle on t.v., and it was a fun collection of bits about the mismatched duo. The sequel sucked -- lots of exposition, no charm. Hint: disgusting is not funny. Well, "Kumar" is working for the White House now, "Harold" is on television and is Lt. Sulu.
Lenore Skenazy used to have a column at the NY Daily News before the op-ed page was taken over by dweebs. There are exceptions, but having the page dominated by the likes of Charles Krauthammer and Richard Cohen leaves something to be desired. It also is not ideal for the page not to have a regular woman op-ed page columnist (there now is one elsewhere in the paper, a gossipy entry that leaves something to be desired). And, don't get me started on the editorial voice of the paper overall. Kneejerk conservative basically covers it.
The basic news coverage (it has decent national coverage for a local tabloid) and other features plus the basic layout makes the paper, the paper I grew up on anyway, still worth buying. But, I do miss some of the old columnists. Back in the day, there were various regulars (even Mike Royko was syndicated there) who provided a personal touch and covered various topics. Gail Collins, for instance, was not always an editor over at the NYT. Stanley Crouch, who is okay but not quite for me, is perhaps the only one truly left of this category. This absence robs the paper of a personal touch. For instance, there is a regular odds and ends type column by a television reviewer, and it adds a nice personal touch to the page.
LS fit this category. She had a column that dealt with serious news of the day as well as still pretty serious (in a fashion) more personal stuff and material covering the social scene. It was this latter category that led her to "Free-Range Kids" (good deal -- those factory farmed kids, not nice), a blog and book arising from a column (she moved to The NY Sun, an alternative that eventually went out of business) discussing how she let her nine-year-old go home alone from midtown Manhattan. Charged with child abuse in absentia, she started a blog for "anyone who thinks that kids need a little more freedom and would like to connect to people who feel the same way."
The blog basically is about perspective. Now, my mom would not have let me do what she let her son do at that age (sure, as LS will tell you, NY was more dangerous back then), and (to quote Letterman in a different context) doing so even today is a bit "hinky."* Putting that aside, life overall needs perspective, even with scary stuff. So, she has a recent blog post on how teenage boys have been labeled "sexual predators" for touching the breasts of teenage girls. Or, "day care" rules that disallow friends to pool babysitting. And, kicking a mom off a bus for a crying child. Anecdote can at some point make you lose perspective too (a few bad cases doesn't mean things are bad overall), but it also keeps people honest -- rules are often wide range and without exception, life a bit more messy and need of special circumstances.
[Further thought: And, anecdote can be but a reflection of wider trends. It's a tricky matter sometimes but it is all so easy as well to just dismiss a few examples as but random anecdotes. It's like when I say something online and someone is all dubious because I do not have an in depth expert research paper on the matter. Plus, when enough readers nod at what is said -- as in her case -- it is a sign that someone is on to something. And, yes, she did do some research on stuff she writes about. Due care is warranted, however, since others do not, or do so selectively. George Will and climate science (or a number of things) is a but an example.]
I added her to the blogroll, since it adds a nice perspective of things. One last thing to say is that she comes off as a nice person. [The video on the Amazon page for her free range book does suggest she is the next Andy Rooney.**] A couple times over the years, I dropped her a line to compliment her on a column and also added a comment to her blog. She replied with a sweet reply even dropping me a line when I commented on her blog recently. Now and again, I email those who write something in the paper -- the email address usually provided -- and often they do supply a nice reply. [Not all, but a majority.]
It's an example of how a quick act can help people's judgment.
---
* But, some do have exaggerated fears of this city, including its subways. I have traveled on them, including nights, enough to know that they are pretty darn safe. Crossing the street in Manhattan also can be safer than some other areas as well. For instance, the more people that cross at a particular intersection, the better it is for the pedestrians.
** Her page over at the blog does note: "She also spent several years as an on-air (younger, cuter) Andy Rooney, first at CNBC and then at the Food Channel."
Lenore Skenazy used to have a column at the NY Daily News before the op-ed page was taken over by dweebs. There are exceptions, but having the page dominated by the likes of Charles Krauthammer and Richard Cohen leaves something to be desired. It also is not ideal for the page not to have a regular woman op-ed page columnist (there now is one elsewhere in the paper, a gossipy entry that leaves something to be desired). And, don't get me started on the editorial voice of the paper overall. Kneejerk conservative basically covers it.
The basic news coverage (it has decent national coverage for a local tabloid) and other features plus the basic layout makes the paper, the paper I grew up on anyway, still worth buying. But, I do miss some of the old columnists. Back in the day, there were various regulars (even Mike Royko was syndicated there) who provided a personal touch and covered various topics. Gail Collins, for instance, was not always an editor over at the NYT. Stanley Crouch, who is okay but not quite for me, is perhaps the only one truly left of this category. This absence robs the paper of a personal touch. For instance, there is a regular odds and ends type column by a television reviewer, and it adds a nice personal touch to the page.
LS fit this category. She had a column that dealt with serious news of the day as well as still pretty serious (in a fashion) more personal stuff and material covering the social scene. It was this latter category that led her to "Free-Range Kids" (good deal -- those factory farmed kids, not nice), a blog and book arising from a column (she moved to The NY Sun, an alternative that eventually went out of business) discussing how she let her nine-year-old go home alone from midtown Manhattan. Charged with child abuse in absentia, she started a blog for "anyone who thinks that kids need a little more freedom and would like to connect to people who feel the same way."
The blog basically is about perspective. Now, my mom would not have let me do what she let her son do at that age (sure, as LS will tell you, NY was more dangerous back then), and (to quote Letterman in a different context) doing so even today is a bit "hinky."* Putting that aside, life overall needs perspective, even with scary stuff. So, she has a recent blog post on how teenage boys have been labeled "sexual predators" for touching the breasts of teenage girls. Or, "day care" rules that disallow friends to pool babysitting. And, kicking a mom off a bus for a crying child. Anecdote can at some point make you lose perspective too (a few bad cases doesn't mean things are bad overall), but it also keeps people honest -- rules are often wide range and without exception, life a bit more messy and need of special circumstances.
[Further thought: And, anecdote can be but a reflection of wider trends. It's a tricky matter sometimes but it is all so easy as well to just dismiss a few examples as but random anecdotes. It's like when I say something online and someone is all dubious because I do not have an in depth expert research paper on the matter. Plus, when enough readers nod at what is said -- as in her case -- it is a sign that someone is on to something. And, yes, she did do some research on stuff she writes about. Due care is warranted, however, since others do not, or do so selectively. George Will and climate science (or a number of things) is a but an example.]
I added her to the blogroll, since it adds a nice perspective of things. One last thing to say is that she comes off as a nice person. [The video on the Amazon page for her free range book does suggest she is the next Andy Rooney.**] A couple times over the years, I dropped her a line to compliment her on a column and also added a comment to her blog. She replied with a sweet reply even dropping me a line when I commented on her blog recently. Now and again, I email those who write something in the paper -- the email address usually provided -- and often they do supply a nice reply. [Not all, but a majority.]
It's an example of how a quick act can help people's judgment.
---
* But, some do have exaggerated fears of this city, including its subways. I have traveled on them, including nights, enough to know that they are pretty darn safe. Crossing the street in Manhattan also can be safer than some other areas as well. For instance, the more people that cross at a particular intersection, the better it is for the pedestrians.
** Her page over at the blog does note: "She also spent several years as an on-air (younger, cuter) Andy Rooney, first at CNBC and then at the Food Channel."
Saturday, October 03, 2009
More Letterman B.S.
And Also: Good to know I'm not alone in being annoyed at Mayor Bloomberg's third term run, which involved overriding two public rejections of ending the term limit in place. It is not the only reason I am not voting for him, though I admit he isn't just a lousy mayor. But, it's up there.
Okay. More b.s. on the David Letterman reporting watch. This is not a matter of taking him off the hook. I don't know the exact details, but having sex with subordinates is inherently problematic. But, let's not go here:
Letterman's comments overall come off somewhat differently. He said things in a deadpan fashion, but the audience knows a bit or two about the guy, including him dealing with a stalker, someone conspiring to kidnap his son, and more. Also, something that involved both his attorney and the district attorney was clearly not overly light fare. And, the "creepy" comment came after talking about finding a letter early one morning in his car threatening something "embarrassing" and so forth. He himself didn't say the affairs were "creepy."
The article also notes:
Actually, he rhetorically asked if it would be, then said it "perhaps" would be and only then makes the self-effacing comment about the women. But, then he says it is up to the women to decide if they want to talk about it. And, that he did not want some person threatening to tell unless Letterman supplied two million dollars. Letterman was being serious among the jokes. This deep down clearly was no laughing matter, and we know he knew it, but again, you wouldn't quite know it from the article. Next:
To be honest, that is not how I read it, but in hindsight, his kidding has that feel about it. Some question Letterman joking about public officials having sexual embarrassments, suggesting he is being hypocritical or something. Not only does this account suggest he makes jokes at his own expense too, but some late night comedian is not the same thing as some politician. And, comics make jokes about some subjects that might affect them too, if we knew their life story.
Anyway, this stinks:
Sure, consensual sex with adult members of the staff is akin to raping a thirteen-year-old girl, being convicted for it, but then jumping bail and going to live in comfort in France. Same thing, totally! The television columnist, who had some snarkiness that left a bad taste in the past too, ended thusly:
Is it really that strange for celebrities to make statements without submitting themselves to Q&A, especially in the middle of a criminal matter? The audience does also "answer back" in various respects, not limited to the reaction he himself sees, and how Letterman interacts with his audiences before the show as well. It also is not much to say that someone who makes a living being a talk show host that they have some sort of "compulsion" to speak to their audience, while keeping things private otherwise.
Lame stuff. The coverage has left something to be desired.
Okay. More b.s. on the David Letterman reporting watch. This is not a matter of taking him off the hook. I don't know the exact details, but having sex with subordinates is inherently problematic. But, let's not go here:
Mr. Letterman admitted "creepy" affairs with CBS employees in a tone so glib and deadpan that the audience couldn't be blamed for assuming that this stand-up comedian, now back at his desk after his monologue, was still joking.
Letterman's comments overall come off somewhat differently. He said things in a deadpan fashion, but the audience knows a bit or two about the guy, including him dealing with a stalker, someone conspiring to kidnap his son, and more. Also, something that involved both his attorney and the district attorney was clearly not overly light fare. And, the "creepy" comment came after talking about finding a letter early one morning in his car threatening something "embarrassing" and so forth. He himself didn't say the affairs were "creepy."
The article also notes:
Mr. Letterman noted that it would be embarrassing for his liaisons to be publicly known, then paused a beat. "Especially for the women."
Actually, he rhetorically asked if it would be, then said it "perhaps" would be and only then makes the self-effacing comment about the women. But, then he says it is up to the women to decide if they want to talk about it. And, that he did not want some person threatening to tell unless Letterman supplied two million dollars. Letterman was being serious among the jokes. This deep down clearly was no laughing matter, and we know he knew it, but again, you wouldn't quite know it from the article. Next:
On the air he had let his fans in on his infatuation with Stephanie Birkitt
To be honest, that is not how I read it, but in hindsight, his kidding has that feel about it. Some question Letterman joking about public officials having sexual embarrassments, suggesting he is being hypocritical or something. Not only does this account suggest he makes jokes at his own expense too, but some late night comedian is not the same thing as some politician. And, comics make jokes about some subjects that might affect them too, if we knew their life story.
Anyway, this stinks:
In his monologue on Thursday, delivered without any sign of stress or unease, Mr. Letterman made a mild joke about Roman Polanski and his arrest in Switzerland on decades-old charges of fleeing the United States after pleading guilty to having sex with a minor. By Friday morning some commentators were likening Mr. Letterman's behavior to that of Mr. Polanski, and they weren't joking.
Sure, consensual sex with adult members of the staff is akin to raping a thirteen-year-old girl, being convicted for it, but then jumping bail and going to live in comfort in France. Same thing, totally! The television columnist, who had some snarkiness that left a bad taste in the past too, ended thusly:
Thursday's admission looked a lot like calculation: Mr. Letterman made himself answerable to an audience that doesn't answer back. But it also had the feel of a Lettermanly compulsion: a talk-show host who can only speak openly on an open mike.
Is it really that strange for celebrities to make statements without submitting themselves to Q&A, especially in the middle of a criminal matter? The audience does also "answer back" in various respects, not limited to the reaction he himself sees, and how Letterman interacts with his audiences before the show as well. It also is not much to say that someone who makes a living being a talk show host that they have some sort of "compulsion" to speak to their audience, while keeping things private otherwise.
Lame stuff. The coverage has left something to be desired.
More Movies
I caught Peter and Paul on video after watching it on television back in the day, and it is a pretty good effort mostly following Acts. Respectful without being too bland. My favorite supporting role was Luke. More light, The Ramen Girl is also a good effort, respecting the audience to boot. Brittany Murphy did well. Nice ending.
Also On the Tube ...
Injuries isn't the only problem with the Mets as the lousy finish shows. Many teams don't have the talent. They still won in double digits last month. Sad to see Stephanie, who I got a kick out of (love how she said "no" when Dave asked something silly), is in middle of this.
Friday, October 02, 2009
A Woman In Berlin
And Also: The coverage of Letterman is of mixed value. Some remind of his past troubles "with a scary collection of loonies and criminals." Others hint at "adultery" without us knowing when the sex occurred. And, others allege he joked about Bristol's 14-year-old sister. Sigh.
What would the face of war be like? Sounds like a good art project. The book is by an anonymous thirty-something German woman in publishing (later discovered to be "a professional journalist, [who] made a name for herself as a Nazi propagandist"), writing a diary from mid-April to mid-June 1945. I found out about it since it was made into a movie, which I never did watch. It is available on this free (at least on a trial basis) movie website, but too large to download for the basic rate. Another movie was available, but without subtitles.*
It starts with her dealing with the last days of the war, often in a basement war bunker. Soon enough Russians are there, along with rape, short term "protectors" (helped by her knowledge of Russian), later some hard labor, and ending with an uncertain future (ironically, the return of her fiance had a negative connotation). The book did not do well in its first printing, the forward to the edition printed after the author's death noting Germans were not open to its blunt realism. The hardships of war through a woman's point of view, particularly the harshness of rape and choices she made to find someone to make her "taboo" from random rape (and supply some food as well) in particular.
It is a striking read. Only on the Wikipedia page (and apparently in the movie to some extent) do we get a hint that she might have herself been a Nazi enabler, though a bit of insight would suggest a publishing firm would probably somehow have such connections. Likewise, there is a bit of her relationship with a woman married to someone involved in the armament industry. But, the book basically is an account of an educated woman, who has traveled around, dealing with the result of the defeat of her nation. Such accounts are must reading to truly understand war.
"Anonymous" is a fitting author as well.
---
* A third foreign film with subtitles was available for free. A charming romantic drama entitled Owl and the Sparrow:
On the free front, I realized that apparently every episode (at least most of them) of the old series Major Dad is available over at IMDB. Gung ho Marine marries lib mom with three daughters. A cute sitcom that I liked back in the day (it dealt with the first Gulf War). High speed Internet has benefits.
This chronicle was begun on the day when Berlin first saw the face of war.
-- A Woman In Berlin: Eight Weeks In The Conquered City
What would the face of war be like? Sounds like a good art project. The book is by an anonymous thirty-something German woman in publishing (later discovered to be "a professional journalist, [who] made a name for herself as a Nazi propagandist"), writing a diary from mid-April to mid-June 1945. I found out about it since it was made into a movie, which I never did watch. It is available on this free (at least on a trial basis) movie website, but too large to download for the basic rate. Another movie was available, but without subtitles.*
It starts with her dealing with the last days of the war, often in a basement war bunker. Soon enough Russians are there, along with rape, short term "protectors" (helped by her knowledge of Russian), later some hard labor, and ending with an uncertain future (ironically, the return of her fiance had a negative connotation). The book did not do well in its first printing, the forward to the edition printed after the author's death noting Germans were not open to its blunt realism. The hardships of war through a woman's point of view, particularly the harshness of rape and choices she made to find someone to make her "taboo" from random rape (and supply some food as well) in particular.
It is a striking read. Only on the Wikipedia page (and apparently in the movie to some extent) do we get a hint that she might have herself been a Nazi enabler, though a bit of insight would suggest a publishing firm would probably somehow have such connections. Likewise, there is a bit of her relationship with a woman married to someone involved in the armament industry. But, the book basically is an account of an educated woman, who has traveled around, dealing with the result of the defeat of her nation. Such accounts are must reading to truly understand war.
"Anonymous" is a fitting author as well.
---
* A third foreign film with subtitles was available for free. A charming romantic drama entitled Owl and the Sparrow:
In modern-day Saigon, three lonely strangers form a unique family as a ten-year old orphan plays matchmaker to a zookeeper and a beautiful flight attendant.
On the free front, I realized that apparently every episode (at least most of them) of the old series Major Dad is available over at IMDB. Gung ho Marine marries lib mom with three daughters. A cute sitcom that I liked back in the day (it dealt with the first Gulf War). High speed Internet has benefits.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Middle
And Also: I asked one local activist his pick for comptroller, since it was hard to tell the four apart, except that two overrode two voter rejections of doing away with term limits. This alone helped, but he also noted the ultimate winner was the true voice of social justice. An op-ed (more so than the pre-election coverage) suggests why. Sounds like what I want in a mayor.
The review seems to think the familiar and yes contrived is somehow not what people have been watching since the family sitcom first came into being. The theme can be writ large -- is Danielle Steel a multi-millionaire because all of her legion of books are unique animals with novel plots and situations, quite realistic to boot? In fact, the same reviewer gave a decent review to a new medical drama that a co-reviewer at the paper later reamed as ridiculously contrived.
It is tedious (at the very least, I find it so) when reviewers now and again speak about some particular work (perhaps a sequel) as contrived or familiar. It is like the myriad of television shows and movies out there generally are novel or something. This in a television universe filled with medical, forensic/lawyer (usually prosecution centered) and reality programming that is somewhat hard to tell apart, especially since some are part of a series (this is the one with Jeff Goldblum, right?). This works also in the written word, as noted above, since the number of books makes the number of filmed works look trivial in comparison.
The question is often not novelty per se, but how standard themes are treated in any particular entry. First, it is fair to look at the specific work, not simply the fact that the themes etc. are standard fare. The Middle has no laugh track and uses one camera; the latter is less immediately apparent to the causal viewer than the former (which I appreciate in particular -- intrusive laugh tracks are annoying), but probably has some real effect overall. Likewise, it is a question of the writing and acting. The dad (resigned to his fate but deep down a decent guy) and daughter (naively optimistic) has potential. The quirky youngest son has some fans, but that can get too cutesy.
So, no, this show is not simply Malcolm in the Middle or Everyone Loves Raymond (I find the latter annoying) just because Patricia Heaton is in it or it is about a quirky middle class family.* Overall, I checked out this show last night (ABC/8:30 EST) and thought it had potential. I like the way the parents accept their quirkiness and flaws, some attempt to give us a sense of place that NY/generic shows do not, and the leads show some talent. I think the sons might be somewhat weak links (the older one in particular needs more character) and all the jokes didn't work.
But, I'm looking for another comfortable show with both humor and some realism. Reba is a gem in this department, and even there sometimes the plots were hit and miss. And, lately, there really haven't been too many successful shows in this department. The Monday and Thursday comedies are not of that caliber (the one with 2.5 men being the only real "family" comedy) and a few others not that good (e.g., Gary Unmarried). You have me for at least another episode.
On that front, the second episode of The Good Wife was disappointing. Another long shot case with some connection to her situation (last time, a mother with kids struggling to handle things; this time, a stripper who brought to mind the prostitute her husband used) felt repetitive. I turned it off. Oh well. There are some shows out there that are of some value; this doesn't mean I care to watch them. And, even those shows, are not really novel, particularly in tone and character.
Bottom line, we don't "need" any of these shows. But, if they provide the goods -- basically some reason for enough people to watch -- they serve their purpose. They need not be novel or really that great to do this. Just good enough for the tastes of enough viewers. Tastes that in fact sometimes like comfort food, particularly if it has just enough flavor to do the trick. Novelty is not exactly why Law & Order is starting its twentieth season. Though I liked the first episode (Bybee proxy charged for conspiracy for writing torture memoranda while in New York), the lack thereof led me to stop watching a long time back.
But, some like that sort of thing. Maybe, some will like this show too.
---
* Patricia Heaton's comments in one of the vids linked above suggests her previous show did not have one camera. I'm not aware if Malcolm did. The mom is the narrator here and there is a daughter, which does point to differences on that front.
There's nothing especially wrong with "The Middle," a new family sitcom set in Indiana, except that the characters feel like more contrived versions of other characters we've been meeting in sitcoms for years.
Which raises the question, at the risk of sounding rude, of why we need "The Middle" at all.
The review seems to think the familiar and yes contrived is somehow not what people have been watching since the family sitcom first came into being. The theme can be writ large -- is Danielle Steel a multi-millionaire because all of her legion of books are unique animals with novel plots and situations, quite realistic to boot? In fact, the same reviewer gave a decent review to a new medical drama that a co-reviewer at the paper later reamed as ridiculously contrived.
It is tedious (at the very least, I find it so) when reviewers now and again speak about some particular work (perhaps a sequel) as contrived or familiar. It is like the myriad of television shows and movies out there generally are novel or something. This in a television universe filled with medical, forensic/lawyer (usually prosecution centered) and reality programming that is somewhat hard to tell apart, especially since some are part of a series (this is the one with Jeff Goldblum, right?). This works also in the written word, as noted above, since the number of books makes the number of filmed works look trivial in comparison.
The question is often not novelty per se, but how standard themes are treated in any particular entry. First, it is fair to look at the specific work, not simply the fact that the themes etc. are standard fare. The Middle has no laugh track and uses one camera; the latter is less immediately apparent to the causal viewer than the former (which I appreciate in particular -- intrusive laugh tracks are annoying), but probably has some real effect overall. Likewise, it is a question of the writing and acting. The dad (resigned to his fate but deep down a decent guy) and daughter (naively optimistic) has potential. The quirky youngest son has some fans, but that can get too cutesy.
So, no, this show is not simply Malcolm in the Middle or Everyone Loves Raymond (I find the latter annoying) just because Patricia Heaton is in it or it is about a quirky middle class family.* Overall, I checked out this show last night (ABC/8:30 EST) and thought it had potential. I like the way the parents accept their quirkiness and flaws, some attempt to give us a sense of place that NY/generic shows do not, and the leads show some talent. I think the sons might be somewhat weak links (the older one in particular needs more character) and all the jokes didn't work.
But, I'm looking for another comfortable show with both humor and some realism. Reba is a gem in this department, and even there sometimes the plots were hit and miss. And, lately, there really haven't been too many successful shows in this department. The Monday and Thursday comedies are not of that caliber (the one with 2.5 men being the only real "family" comedy) and a few others not that good (e.g., Gary Unmarried). You have me for at least another episode.
On that front, the second episode of The Good Wife was disappointing. Another long shot case with some connection to her situation (last time, a mother with kids struggling to handle things; this time, a stripper who brought to mind the prostitute her husband used) felt repetitive. I turned it off. Oh well. There are some shows out there that are of some value; this doesn't mean I care to watch them. And, even those shows, are not really novel, particularly in tone and character.
Bottom line, we don't "need" any of these shows. But, if they provide the goods -- basically some reason for enough people to watch -- they serve their purpose. They need not be novel or really that great to do this. Just good enough for the tastes of enough viewers. Tastes that in fact sometimes like comfort food, particularly if it has just enough flavor to do the trick. Novelty is not exactly why Law & Order is starting its twentieth season. Though I liked the first episode (Bybee proxy charged for conspiracy for writing torture memoranda while in New York), the lack thereof led me to stop watching a long time back.
But, some like that sort of thing. Maybe, some will like this show too.
---
* Patricia Heaton's comments in one of the vids linked above suggests her previous show did not have one camera. I'm not aware if Malcolm did. The mom is the narrator here and there is a daughter, which does point to differences on that front.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Road to 70 Hits A Snag
Great effort K-Rod! First time since the early 60s where the team lost a series, natch were swept, to a team with over 100 losses. I have a feeling that this is more an act of shooting the messenger on Afghanistan than anything else. Shame really.
Your U.S. Supreme Court
New cases taken include applying gun rights to the states. Meanwhile, the original plurality winners won in yesterday's runoff. How about instant run-off voting? Over ten million dollars could have been saved.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Road to 70 Wins?
As the Twins and Braves keep two races alive, the Mets had another pathetic loss, though this time such a loss to the Nats matters little.
Health Care Again
And Also: The blog is getting too crowded and Paul Campos has too many just plain awful comments, but Scott again provides a reason to go to LGM (if there are more than three involved, even the name no longer works!) ... anti-child rape defense edition. OTOH, recently TalkLeft specifically RIP-ed someone involved in the murder of his wife. Absurd.
A few Democrats of one committee of one body of Congress voted with the Republicans against the public option, two versions. Four of five committees support it. But, a few conservative Democrats refuse to join with their party and the majority of the public to vote for sanity. So be it. Get the damn thing out of the damn committee, and let's see if these same Dems will join with the Republicans to block health care writ large. For what does government do for us to trust it, anyway? It after all allows people like you to the party.
An interesting argument that too much wonk is self-defeating can be found here. We now have the absurd debate going on about "mandated" health insurance ... in fact, some argue it is unconstitutional. The fools errand of bipartisanship (well, it did work above ... the wrong way) has been shown. The use of a means as an end itself has its limitations. So is focusing on costs or details, and now putting forth the bottom line -- health care is a right. People basically think of it that way already. It is like time old privileges and immunities of Englishmen that in time were seen as basic rights, rights that amounted to self-evident truths. Even if the details might be tricky.
This has to be kept as a basic sentiment here. Oh, the need for a sound economic system will help, and will help convince those whose insurance is not at risk or who might have some sort of doubts on the right side. Governmental power alone provides too much flexibility really, talk of ideal policy in a tone that in effect damns it to defeat even (sigh) though it's a good idea with majority support. Still, pragmatics often help the cause. But, the basic justice of it has special force. We have to pay for the services cited above -- we cannot "opt out," even if we might not need one or the other thing. And, we also realize that even if we might not, others will, and how they go, we as a nation go. We are in this together. Not that some Dems appear to care.
I don't know what the final bill will amount to, so I do not talk of details as such here. Oh, some like to pretend as there are clear lines of what "Obamacare" (as if it was his bill, as if he was Congress) will be. But, the wonkish details are not as important as the basics. Still, this talk of mandates is b.s. From my understanding, the idea appears to be that if you don't get insurance, you need to pay a tax. SFW!!! It is absurd that people have problems with this. Any number of things, let's say environmentally ideal homes, provide tax breaks. Why is having health insurance, particularly when even those who cannot pay still have a legal right to basic care, so different? Still, if health care was simply a right, like police services, we would think nothing of charging people. Even if they aren't themselves robbed. Are those services above pro rata? Or, is it no substitutions?
People argue you need not have car insurance since you don't need a car, ignoring all for which it is a necessity, the remainder who pay for the insurance of those who drive to provide them various goods and services. But, push come to shove, I bet few really are against mandatory car insurance, even if they realize a majority find a car a necessity. It is not seen as a burden as such, but a logical path, a means to provide a public good -- safety from uninsured drivers. Why is health care, ever so more basic to our well being, so understood by so many sane nations, different? Yes, unprincipled hackery helps.
Well, Detroit won and the Jets are 3-0. Life is full with possibilities with the right approach.
Roads, schools and universities, sewers, police, fire departments, libraries, weather reporting, parks, science and medical research, courts to process criminal and civil issues, hospitals and emergency rooms, power, drinkable water, worker safety laws, food safety, irrigation systems, public records, emergency aid, social security, disability insurance, veteran's care, student loans, natural resource protections, farm aid, investments in technology, bank deposit insurance, animal control, disease and poison control, disaster relief, building codes, product safety, patent protection, flood control, space exploration.
-- Things Your Taxes Pay For (comment)
A few Democrats of one committee of one body of Congress voted with the Republicans against the public option, two versions. Four of five committees support it. But, a few conservative Democrats refuse to join with their party and the majority of the public to vote for sanity. So be it. Get the damn thing out of the damn committee, and let's see if these same Dems will join with the Republicans to block health care writ large. For what does government do for us to trust it, anyway? It after all allows people like you to the party.
[T]he problem that health care reform was meant to solve is not that costs are too high, but that millions of Americans lack health insurance. You know, health care is a right, middle class security, dynamic economy and competitiveness, etc.
An interesting argument that too much wonk is self-defeating can be found here. We now have the absurd debate going on about "mandated" health insurance ... in fact, some argue it is unconstitutional. The fools errand of bipartisanship (well, it did work above ... the wrong way) has been shown. The use of a means as an end itself has its limitations. So is focusing on costs or details, and now putting forth the bottom line -- health care is a right. People basically think of it that way already. It is like time old privileges and immunities of Englishmen that in time were seen as basic rights, rights that amounted to self-evident truths. Even if the details might be tricky.
This has to be kept as a basic sentiment here. Oh, the need for a sound economic system will help, and will help convince those whose insurance is not at risk or who might have some sort of doubts on the right side. Governmental power alone provides too much flexibility really, talk of ideal policy in a tone that in effect damns it to defeat even (sigh) though it's a good idea with majority support. Still, pragmatics often help the cause. But, the basic justice of it has special force. We have to pay for the services cited above -- we cannot "opt out," even if we might not need one or the other thing. And, we also realize that even if we might not, others will, and how they go, we as a nation go. We are in this together. Not that some Dems appear to care.
I don't know what the final bill will amount to, so I do not talk of details as such here. Oh, some like to pretend as there are clear lines of what "Obamacare" (as if it was his bill, as if he was Congress) will be. But, the wonkish details are not as important as the basics. Still, this talk of mandates is b.s. From my understanding, the idea appears to be that if you don't get insurance, you need to pay a tax. SFW!!! It is absurd that people have problems with this. Any number of things, let's say environmentally ideal homes, provide tax breaks. Why is having health insurance, particularly when even those who cannot pay still have a legal right to basic care, so different? Still, if health care was simply a right, like police services, we would think nothing of charging people. Even if they aren't themselves robbed. Are those services above pro rata? Or, is it no substitutions?
People argue you need not have car insurance since you don't need a car, ignoring all for which it is a necessity, the remainder who pay for the insurance of those who drive to provide them various goods and services. But, push come to shove, I bet few really are against mandatory car insurance, even if they realize a majority find a car a necessity. It is not seen as a burden as such, but a logical path, a means to provide a public good -- safety from uninsured drivers. Why is health care, ever so more basic to our well being, so understood by so many sane nations, different? Yes, unprincipled hackery helps.
Well, Detroit won and the Jets are 3-0. Life is full with possibilities with the right approach.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The So-Called "So-Called Right of Privacy"
And Also: Detroit won for the first time since 2007, but the blackout policy (didn't sell out; wonder why) meant that the heavily unemployed locals could not watch it on regular television. The Jets had to meet some adversity to win their game. This is good overall. The NFL are assholes on this, overall.
The "right to privacy" is a much maligned one, even for many supporters of the ground covered. Jamal Greene joined the club ("The So-Called Right to Privacy"), while noting it is no more, the protections subsumed now under the "liberty" aspect of the Due Process Clause. This, so it is argued, provides it with a more text based hook and "Privacy was never an apt moniker for the rights they have characteristically sought to protect." Thus, we are told:
Brandeis decades later constitutionalized the right in his famous Olmstead v. U.S. dissent, a dissent not cited at all in the article here. This is particularly shoddy, but in spirit not totally out of character of efforts like these. As Glenn Greenwald might say, thus this discussion is not necessarily meant to target one particular person, but a general theme. If one reads the beginning of the law review article, we see a germ of an idea that goes long beyond gossip-mongers, even if that is the specific concern. One does not have to read much, since the first paragraph includes this broad principle:
Similarly, as cited in Roe, such common law civil rights applied in a case involving a tort claim where refusal to search a woman's body was upheld. Again, not cited here. Much easier to get to a desired end when matters that hurt your case are ignored or glided over. OTOH, this makes it harder to take the argument as seriously. So it goes. Thus, we jump to Griswold, as if no previous case spoke of privacy [links found therein notwithstanding] and told "Privacy protected by the Bill of Rights, Justice Douglas seemed to say in, but not in so many words." This as if there is some deduction required by "Various guarantees [of the Bill of Rights] create zones of privacy."
It is admitted that there was a certain "common-sense" connection to the marital bedroom and "privacy" but that the right (as found in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, though the opinion went beyond them) was of a limited nature to bar evidence, and was of "no use to individuals seeking to avoid the reach of the criminal law altogether." This is where it's useful to remember that Griswold did not shoot out like Athena from Zeus' head. For instance, as cited in Griswold, there were cases involving criminal laws covering associations, where privacy was secured. The activity as a whole, not solely evidence blocked from prosecution. But, the two are connected: the need for special checks to invade privacy inherently means there is something protected.
The privacy right is not absolute. So, the "altogether" is an exaggeration as well. We are told that Roe was a problem since privacy does not seem to "bear the weight of justification for an exemption from abortion restrictions." Why exactly? It helps to just assume a conclusion without actually defending it -- "preserving potential human life is spectacularly weighty." Thus, it "seems" remarkable that the right to privacy as applied here does not only outweigh that interest, but "reject it altogether." Why is the right to potential life at say one week "spectacularly weighty" vis-a-vis privacy? Since the right to choose an abortion is far from absolute, when is it rejected altogether? Is the right of a woman's health "weighty" enough to override?
We are then told that a stream of cases after Roe extending liberty rights avoided the term "privacy" as such. This is fair enough, but they repeatedly tend to cover similar ground. Thus, Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (forced maternity leave) spoke of "a right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion." Moore v. City of East Cleveland (expansive definition of "family") spoke of "freedom of personal choice" and "a private realm of family life" (citing a 1944 case; the message is that Griswold is sort of disfavored, but perhaps it should be that it was firmly grounded). If we jump ahead, we can also include Lawrence here. Justice Harlan's Poe v. Ullman dissent is also well cited; it too singled out the "privacy of the home" and the "most intimate of all personal relationships."
Use of language like "unwarranted government intrusions" might appease those who think the "right to privacy" is tainted, but what exactly does "privacy" mean if not that? It is telling that the majority of Lawrence cites Stevens' dissent over Blackmun's, but then who remains on the Court? Stevens rephrased things: "the individual's right to make certain unusually important decisions that will affect his own, or his family's, destiny." What sort of important decisions? Stevens says it himself in his Bowers dissent -- "private conduct." Public life leads to some important decisions too; but, private/intimate ones are of special importance, a special sphere often outside the power of the state.
It is often argued that "private" is confusing since various rights under its rubric seem pretty public. What is "public" overall about deciding whether or not to have a child? Modern life pushed the state more into such intimate matters, true enough, but that just underlines the importance of more protection of the right to privacy. Louis Brandeis knew that well, using the common law -- which develops with the needs of time -- to help countermand both private and public use of modern tools that invade such privacy. This is also seen in end of life decisions.
This applies as well to the lower court ruling where Judge Stevens cited his understanding of "privacy" as quoted above. Greene argued it was "profoundly weird" for the privacy right found in Griswold et. al. to apply -- it involved a couple who wanted the father present at the birth of his child at a public hospital. But, Stevens noting that their claim (which failed 2-1, via his own opinion) was not the "same privacy" cited in Brandeis' law review article does not mean it did not make sense. Once upon a time, the birth would be a private act at home. The act still retains a private aspect, just like a patient should have some right to choose who visits him/her in a hospital. Brandeis/Warren did not oppose people seeing pictures of their weddings ... they wanted to have some control over it all the same.
It is noted that the "liberty" interest also is hooked up with the right to equality. The "right to privacy" is cited as a species of "liberty" at any rate -- rights applied against the state such as this are secured by the Due Process Clause. Roe explicitly said as much, not using the "penumbra" approach of Griswold. Ironically, as noted by the article, the latter approach provided an arguably narrower path. "Liberty" is a broad, open-ended term. Privacy or whatever provides a way to apply it to a certain area. How is the new path more text based? If anything, the charm (?) is that it is more open-ended now. And, liberty has to be applied in an equitable matter, and often certain groups benefit in particular.
I'm not sure how "privacy" hurts the cause as such, especially since the language used in the opinions tend to use related words or terms. If gender equality (not developed as such at the time of Roe) is a better fit, so be it, but use of gender liberty rights over gender privacy is helpful, how? It might be that the right to privacy was not adequately discussed early on, the right therefore got a bad reputation, and different words are a better fit in practice. This might fit pragmatically, but let's not use that to ignore the substantive differences are somewhat thin. Justice Scalia suddenly is not convinced; a "compelling state [public] interest" suddenly does not disappear if different language is used. Complaints about arbitrary line drawing or slippery slopes remain.
And, "private" is used to cover ground that is not totally private all the time, and the word is not suddenly deemed absurd. Private life is much regulated; is it not "private" any more? [Well, okay, don't answer that.] We speak of "private" choices like who to marry or who to invite to your wedding, even if the public knows who you wed and the event itself might take place in a public locale. Critics can always say abortion choices are not really "intimate" or "personal liberties" since a third party is involved. The article does not say there is no privacy right at all, including tort related. But, the criticisms can apply there too. So, no "private property" since it is fill with public involvement. Sounds a bit absurd.
The "right to privacy" is used against various groups, e.g., in the area of funding of abortion. That is, the choice is protected, but public funding would be different. But, Stevens' acceptance of this path in various respects underlines "liberty" does not help that much in this respect. The problem is that the state is acting inequitably here. It is selectively funding certain private choices -- to have the child over having an abortion. And, "private" again is robbed of much meaning at all if government involvement suddenly makes an act or place totally "public." To the degree the word is misconstrued, it is writ large, not just in this specific context. Cf. the long practice of not targeting marital rape -- doing so doesn't suddenly mean the bedroom is public.
I think "privacy" contains a certain core quality that retains its value, even if different terms are used such as "personal autonomy" or so forth. If it has a negative connotation, fine, but the cases and discussion continue to cite the principle in so many words all the same. Thus, Lawrence focused on the intimate matter at hand, saying various more matters of public concern (e.g., prostitution, economic matters treated differently) were not involved. Before ending with a basic living constitutional approach, the opinion ended its discussion of the matter at hand thus:
Privacy seems not quite dead yet.
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.
-- Lawrence v. Texas
The "right to privacy" is a much maligned one, even for many supporters of the ground covered. Jamal Greene joined the club ("The So-Called Right to Privacy"), while noting it is no more, the protections subsumed now under the "liberty" aspect of the Due Process Clause. This, so it is argued, provides it with a more text based hook and "Privacy was never an apt moniker for the rights they have characteristically sought to protect." Thus, we are told:
When Warren and Brandeis wrote of a right to privacy in their 1890 article, they had in mind civil suits against gossip-mongers and paparazzi, not constitutional defenses against abortion prosecutions.
Brandeis decades later constitutionalized the right in his famous Olmstead v. U.S. dissent, a dissent not cited at all in the article here. This is particularly shoddy, but in spirit not totally out of character of efforts like these. As Glenn Greenwald might say, thus this discussion is not necessarily meant to target one particular person, but a general theme. If one reads the beginning of the law review article, we see a germ of an idea that goes long beyond gossip-mongers, even if that is the specific concern. One does not have to read much, since the first paragraph includes this broad principle:
Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.
Similarly, as cited in Roe, such common law civil rights applied in a case involving a tort claim where refusal to search a woman's body was upheld. Again, not cited here. Much easier to get to a desired end when matters that hurt your case are ignored or glided over. OTOH, this makes it harder to take the argument as seriously. So it goes. Thus, we jump to Griswold, as if no previous case spoke of privacy [links found therein notwithstanding] and told "Privacy protected by the Bill of Rights, Justice Douglas seemed to say in, but not in so many words." This as if there is some deduction required by "Various guarantees [of the Bill of Rights] create zones of privacy."
It is admitted that there was a certain "common-sense" connection to the marital bedroom and "privacy" but that the right (as found in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, though the opinion went beyond them) was of a limited nature to bar evidence, and was of "no use to individuals seeking to avoid the reach of the criminal law altogether." This is where it's useful to remember that Griswold did not shoot out like Athena from Zeus' head. For instance, as cited in Griswold, there were cases involving criminal laws covering associations, where privacy was secured. The activity as a whole, not solely evidence blocked from prosecution. But, the two are connected: the need for special checks to invade privacy inherently means there is something protected.
The privacy right is not absolute. So, the "altogether" is an exaggeration as well. We are told that Roe was a problem since privacy does not seem to "bear the weight of justification for an exemption from abortion restrictions." Why exactly? It helps to just assume a conclusion without actually defending it -- "preserving potential human life is spectacularly weighty." Thus, it "seems" remarkable that the right to privacy as applied here does not only outweigh that interest, but "reject it altogether." Why is the right to potential life at say one week "spectacularly weighty" vis-a-vis privacy? Since the right to choose an abortion is far from absolute, when is it rejected altogether? Is the right of a woman's health "weighty" enough to override?
We are then told that a stream of cases after Roe extending liberty rights avoided the term "privacy" as such. This is fair enough, but they repeatedly tend to cover similar ground. Thus, Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (forced maternity leave) spoke of "a right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion." Moore v. City of East Cleveland (expansive definition of "family") spoke of "freedom of personal choice" and "a private realm of family life" (citing a 1944 case; the message is that Griswold is sort of disfavored, but perhaps it should be that it was firmly grounded). If we jump ahead, we can also include Lawrence here. Justice Harlan's Poe v. Ullman dissent is also well cited; it too singled out the "privacy of the home" and the "most intimate of all personal relationships."
Use of language like "unwarranted government intrusions" might appease those who think the "right to privacy" is tainted, but what exactly does "privacy" mean if not that? It is telling that the majority of Lawrence cites Stevens' dissent over Blackmun's, but then who remains on the Court? Stevens rephrased things: "the individual's right to make certain unusually important decisions that will affect his own, or his family's, destiny." What sort of important decisions? Stevens says it himself in his Bowers dissent -- "private conduct." Public life leads to some important decisions too; but, private/intimate ones are of special importance, a special sphere often outside the power of the state.
It is often argued that "private" is confusing since various rights under its rubric seem pretty public. What is "public" overall about deciding whether or not to have a child? Modern life pushed the state more into such intimate matters, true enough, but that just underlines the importance of more protection of the right to privacy. Louis Brandeis knew that well, using the common law -- which develops with the needs of time -- to help countermand both private and public use of modern tools that invade such privacy. This is also seen in end of life decisions.
This applies as well to the lower court ruling where Judge Stevens cited his understanding of "privacy" as quoted above. Greene argued it was "profoundly weird" for the privacy right found in Griswold et. al. to apply -- it involved a couple who wanted the father present at the birth of his child at a public hospital. But, Stevens noting that their claim (which failed 2-1, via his own opinion) was not the "same privacy" cited in Brandeis' law review article does not mean it did not make sense. Once upon a time, the birth would be a private act at home. The act still retains a private aspect, just like a patient should have some right to choose who visits him/her in a hospital. Brandeis/Warren did not oppose people seeing pictures of their weddings ... they wanted to have some control over it all the same.
It is noted that the "liberty" interest also is hooked up with the right to equality. The "right to privacy" is cited as a species of "liberty" at any rate -- rights applied against the state such as this are secured by the Due Process Clause. Roe explicitly said as much, not using the "penumbra" approach of Griswold. Ironically, as noted by the article, the latter approach provided an arguably narrower path. "Liberty" is a broad, open-ended term. Privacy or whatever provides a way to apply it to a certain area. How is the new path more text based? If anything, the charm (?) is that it is more open-ended now. And, liberty has to be applied in an equitable matter, and often certain groups benefit in particular.
I'm not sure how "privacy" hurts the cause as such, especially since the language used in the opinions tend to use related words or terms. If gender equality (not developed as such at the time of Roe) is a better fit, so be it, but use of gender liberty rights over gender privacy is helpful, how? It might be that the right to privacy was not adequately discussed early on, the right therefore got a bad reputation, and different words are a better fit in practice. This might fit pragmatically, but let's not use that to ignore the substantive differences are somewhat thin. Justice Scalia suddenly is not convinced; a "compelling state [public] interest" suddenly does not disappear if different language is used. Complaints about arbitrary line drawing or slippery slopes remain.
And, "private" is used to cover ground that is not totally private all the time, and the word is not suddenly deemed absurd. Private life is much regulated; is it not "private" any more? [Well, okay, don't answer that.] We speak of "private" choices like who to marry or who to invite to your wedding, even if the public knows who you wed and the event itself might take place in a public locale. Critics can always say abortion choices are not really "intimate" or "personal liberties" since a third party is involved. The article does not say there is no privacy right at all, including tort related. But, the criticisms can apply there too. So, no "private property" since it is fill with public involvement. Sounds a bit absurd.
The "right to privacy" is used against various groups, e.g., in the area of funding of abortion. That is, the choice is protected, but public funding would be different. But, Stevens' acceptance of this path in various respects underlines "liberty" does not help that much in this respect. The problem is that the state is acting inequitably here. It is selectively funding certain private choices -- to have the child over having an abortion. And, "private" again is robbed of much meaning at all if government involvement suddenly makes an act or place totally "public." To the degree the word is misconstrued, it is writ large, not just in this specific context. Cf. the long practice of not targeting marital rape -- doing so doesn't suddenly mean the bedroom is public.
I think "privacy" contains a certain core quality that retains its value, even if different terms are used such as "personal autonomy" or so forth. If it has a negative connotation, fine, but the cases and discussion continue to cite the principle in so many words all the same. Thus, Lawrence focused on the intimate matter at hand, saying various more matters of public concern (e.g., prostitution, economic matters treated differently) were not involved. Before ending with a basic living constitutional approach, the opinion ended its discussion of the matter at hand thus:
The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Privacy seems not quite dead yet.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
4-4
Games pushed back for the Jewish holiday, four NY (NY/NJ) teams played at the same time this afternoon, all winning. The Jets and Yanks (clinched) had a bit more trouble, while the Mets had a complete game (!) and the Giants a shutout. Oh, the Lions won.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Blood That Cries Out From the Earth
And Also: Rachel Maddow had another piece on the hypocrisy of the efforts against ACORN and a taste of why can be found here by someone who has acted against a real problem, contractors run amuck. This includes real allegations of child sex rings.
Blood That Cries Out From the Earth: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism by James W. Jones is an interesting discussion, the link providing a couple essays that provides its core aspects in short essay form. I really liked the first couple chapters that provides a summary of religious terrorism after a personal statement from the author. He is not just an expert in religion, one who has done casework with those in prison, but who had an eyewitness view of 9/11. This adds force to such comments as:
Noting that both words are so disputed that it results in a situation of "combining the unknown with the obscure," the author does provide a thumbnail definition of "religious terrorism" -- use of violence, often in symbolic but deadly actions, in the service of sacred goals or values. The author is careful to note that terrorism is a complex matter (involving psychology, politics, economics, religion, and culture) that should not be examined in a simplistic matter. A summary:
Three case models are provided: Islamic terrorism, Aum Shinrikyo (thus Buddhism also has violent tendencies), and American Apocalyptic Christianity (a somewhat disconcerting discussion of how this influenced Bush policy is included here; it seems somewhat out of place). A somewhat tedious psychological discussion of how stunted development can lead to a terrorist mind-set follows. The book does underline early that the terrorist is not a monster, but are quite ordinary when looked upon from afar. And, the conclusion argues that a different view of religion, focusing on peace, non-violence,* not a stereotypical view of others and ultimately "tolerating ambiguity."
After all, terrorism, an acceptance of "social death" necessary for the violence involved, requires a self-assurance that ultimately can be deemed blasphemy -- a belief that imperfect humans can know the divine enough to justify such a path.
---
* For instance, the Hebrew prophets often denounced use of sacrifice, a type of scapegoating which terrorism is but an exaggerated form of, used over good works. Also, "Islam" means "peace" ... but notice how close that is to "Shalom" and "Jerusalem" (City of Peace).
Blood That Cries Out From the Earth: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism by James W. Jones is an interesting discussion, the link providing a couple essays that provides its core aspects in short essay form. I really liked the first couple chapters that provides a summary of religious terrorism after a personal statement from the author. He is not just an expert in religion, one who has done casework with those in prison, but who had an eyewitness view of 9/11. This adds force to such comments as:
Understanding an action in no way means excusing it; explaining an action in no way means condoning it. ...
Must we resort to the same tactic [demonization of the other] -- which is so costly psychologically and spiritually -- in order to oppose terrorism? Or can we counter religiously motivated terrorism without becoming like them?
Noting that both words are so disputed that it results in a situation of "combining the unknown with the obscure," the author does provide a thumbnail definition of "religious terrorism" -- use of violence, often in symbolic but deadly actions, in the service of sacred goals or values. The author is careful to note that terrorism is a complex matter (involving psychology, politics, economics, religion, and culture) that should not be examined in a simplistic matter. A summary:
[1] Profound experiences of shame and humiliation from outside or inside group [stunted childhood development discussed as one aspect here ... failure to form a realistic perspective of the world]
[2] Splitting of humanity into black/white camps, demonizing other/"social death"
[3] Wrathful, punitive idealized deity or leader (self or other demonized to encourage this) ... see John Dean on authoritarian personality?
[4] Conviction that purification is needed / shedding of blood ... sacrifice
[5] Fascination of violence [Left Behind series discussed]
Three case models are provided: Islamic terrorism, Aum Shinrikyo (thus Buddhism also has violent tendencies), and American Apocalyptic Christianity (a somewhat disconcerting discussion of how this influenced Bush policy is included here; it seems somewhat out of place). A somewhat tedious psychological discussion of how stunted development can lead to a terrorist mind-set follows. The book does underline early that the terrorist is not a monster, but are quite ordinary when looked upon from afar. And, the conclusion argues that a different view of religion, focusing on peace, non-violence,* not a stereotypical view of others and ultimately "tolerating ambiguity."
After all, terrorism, an acceptance of "social death" necessary for the violence involved, requires a self-assurance that ultimately can be deemed blasphemy -- a belief that imperfect humans can know the divine enough to justify such a path.
---
* For instance, the Hebrew prophets often denounced use of sacrifice, a type of scapegoating which terrorism is but an exaggerated form of, used over good works. Also, "Islam" means "peace" ... but notice how close that is to "Shalom" and "Jerusalem" (City of Peace).
Friday, September 25, 2009
"Yoo" Is Finally Brought To Trial
Not a big fan of Law & Order ... tired of its standard plot and snide defense attorneys, but Glenn Greenwald recommended the season premiere (having serious dramas at 8 with Jay Leno on at 10 seems a bit off). It finds a way to bring a Bushie to trial for torture, and it was pretty good. It should have noted "enemy combatants" are on the say-so of the executive though. Innocents were tortured.
Various
ACORN: The ACORN framing report cited by Rachel Maddow can be found here. Discussion over at Slate is interesting too. Some note the actors are obviously fake, so the people involved might have seen it as some sort of test to show they kept the details private. Or, that people realized when dealing with people from the streets the best way was to humor them. Fair enough, but even playing acting respecting teen sex slavery, particularly when you get tax dollars and a lot of bad press, is simply stupid. But, yes, the clowns were not "reporting," since they only selectively provided information. For instance, they did not note the number of times they were kicked out.
Twins: An interesting medical novelty points to the fact that birth, not conception, matters in the eyes of the law. Also, the trickiness of definitions is shown in another way: they are "twins," since it's one pregnancy and one birth. I don't know how far to take this, but it does make me think of various reproductive choice questions. "Contraceptives" including those that stop implantation etc. Strict following of definitions without context will lead you to a brick wall at times.
The Good Wife: Rory Gilmore's last boyfriend, a rich schmuck, is the young nemesis on The Good Wife. Well, at least, a lead character isn't dating him. He's also in a gross out movie. A lot of schmukc roles out there, I guess. Anyway, as I noted, that show might have predictable legal moves (first off, she discovers hidden evidence to get her client off, showing her chops -- how realistic!). But, there are signs of good character interaction, including a quick scene with her son. Character also balances out the suspect legal moves in Drop Dead Diva.
Tiresome: A PSA for breast cancer awareness uses a sexy babe to remind that those who like them should care about that issue. This tedious knee-jerk post, unfortunately a strand seen there at times, translates this to mean: "[b]ecause the only way to get people to care about women dying of breast cancer is to remind them that tits are stake." As a few in the comments note, no, it means that for some that could help.*
---
* The blog is sex friendly, but when an ad uses sex to promote a good cause, suddenly it's all sexism alert!!!! Similarly, a post a few months back was horrified that a woman was fired because she wouldn't wear a far from overly sexy uniform to be a barmaid. Sex friendly at times requires a bit more perspective.
BTW, that blog (as with TPM) has one of those annoying comment streams where I have problems signing in. But, I comment enough places, I guess.