Pro Bowl / Mushrooms

Saw a few minutes of the Pro Bowl after the NFC went up by a lot, the end result about the same as the last game that mattered. Sorta. Bland sometimes, mushrooms are quite tasty if done right.

TV Quickies

One of the best drama series in TV history ends on Feb. 9, so even though it has the ratings of a 3 a.m. "Nanny" rerun, let's give "Friday Night Lights" a final round of applause.

I enjoy both.  LGM posts a good interview of Assange; I don't watch 60 Minutes but appreciate flags to take notice of something they do. 

Crime: Stories

Is it reading time? This is another good book (and translation): a collection of short stories by a German defense attorney.

Happy Birthday Sis! (More Today Than Oprah!)

At The Dark End of the Street

A very good different perspective on well trod ground, Rosa Parks but one heroine in a long road to respect and dignity.

Justice Sotomayor Q&A

She joined many others over the years in the Landon Lecture Series, answering questions in lieu of a speech.  She is quite personable and comes off well.  I appreciated her comments on affirmative action and how educating the public is an important part of her job.

Sports Quickie (Go Packs!)

Gil Meche is getting some appropriate kudos for turning down millions to get paid for basically being on the DL.  For some, every last cent is not all that matters. This article on the Packers' atypical financial scheme is another reason for my favorite for the Super Bowl.

Being Erica

Not living in Canada, I had to wait until yesterday to see the latest season of this show, including the answer to the cliffhanger -- what is through that door? Answer: not too much.  Decent episode but "group" is a bit annoying. As to the planned American remake, tad redundant.

Fugitive Justice: Runaways, Rescuers, and Slavery on Trial

A page turning book centering on three 1850s trials with enough background to put things in perspective.  Best for the human stories.

Since Mild Reform Is Too Scary

Sen. Udall's mild filibuster reform fails.

Let's Focus On Real Issues

And Also: This underlines that Citizens United, which promotes disclosure and disclaimer laws while leaving the issue of foreign corporations open, is not the only thing to blame. More from me here.

[The below is in response to an article by William Saletan, whose "alternative" pro-choice columns over at Slate get some well deserved grief from various sources.  This one is a reply to an disreputable abortion doctor in the news, leading to the usual focus on extremes.  I think LGM replies well here too, one of a few recent posts on the topic. Here's a bit from me.]

But we'll still be left with some women who, for no medical reason, have run out the clock, even to the point of viability. Should their abortion requests be granted anyway? I've answered your questions. Now it's your turn to answer mine.

Viability was used as the line as a type of compromise -- there is no perfect line and constitutional line drawing rarely is absolutist, though some think it should be. If that's the law in PA, it's the law and should be followed. The Supreme Court allows a second physician requirement to be used to care about the viable fetus' needs. Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft.

But, let's remember what is at stake here. "Some women." Saletan notes that >1.5% of all abortions involve viable fetuses,and this includes some borderline cases where survival is unlikely. Some subset of these involve threats to the woman's health/life or severely disabled fetuses. "Late term" also means different things; "partial birth abortions" are sometimes said to be "late" abortions, even though a significant number occur before viability.

So, we are talking a fraction of a percent left over. Citing data on "second trimester" abortions [which can be 10 weeks earlier] are only of limited value in determining numbers here. Also, he cites a doctor who said the "health" threat was exaggerated. But, what does "health" mean? The Supreme Court defined the term broadly in a ruling before Roe v. Wade to avoid vagueness problems. I don't know how the physician defined it but think it reasonable to assume his definition is arguably too narrow.* And, who decides if it is? If you can't trust a woman and her doctor?
One blog replied to the piece thusly:

We’re debating the rights of some group of theoretical women who want to have post-viability abortions, and who have no medical reason to do so, and who were perfectly able to access abortion earlier in their pregnancies. Why? Seriously, why are we doing that? There are not significant numbers of these women. Abortions after 24 weeks are already highly restricted, and can’t just be done on a whim. This is not really a significant point in the abortion debates, theoretically or realistically. What does impact thousands and thousands of women is the fact that abortions are hard to get because anti-choicers have erected a bunch of barriers, using many of the same arguments that Saletan focuses on in this piece; the fact that even birth control and decent sex education isn’t the easiest to come by in the United States because of those same anti-choice activists who aren’t just against abortion but who oppose anything that helps to give women control over their own bodies and lives; and the fact that abortion is demonized as evil or selfish murderous instead of taken for what it is: A fairly common part of women’s reproductive experiences.

Why is this question being raised? Theoretical questions are tossed out all the time on this and other issues, while they don't actually apply to nearly all the matters at hand. When safe abortions [cf. this very case] are provided without threats even to first trimester abortions, when the question of non-health related third trimester abortions is actually the issue at hand, come back to me.

I might say even then that the line drawing is so hard that we should trust the women and her doctor to determine the question, but realize absolutism isn't the likely result. I will say that the Roe guideline works for me. But, rarely, do we have the liberty to worry about making the call.

[Update: A look at the Grand Jury report of the acts that led to the question being raised reaffirms all of this. All that is charged makes the illegal late term abortions an also ran, especially given the "need" for said abortions seemed not be a concern, even though a credible doctor would take that into consideration before performing such dangerous procedures.]

---

* Doe v. Bolton noted:

We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp. at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.

I'm not sure, especially given that post-viable abortions are riskier than childbirth, just what abortions that occur at this stage do not meet that test. I have a thought that the doctor cited by Saletan defined "health" in a different way. But, who knows. Are we to make violators of vague guidelines criminals?

Roe Turns 28

As abortion rights continue to be complicated (and threatened), another anniversary passed by with little note. Still, see here (last link there too) for some discussion from yours truly on Roe v. Wade. [Update: Some gender equality was secured at the Court today.]

Go Packers!

I don't want to see the Loser Bowl (for those who won't play the next week) and lost my taste for the "Packers v. Oh Yay Them Again" Bowl.

[expletive deleted]

Packers Win (21-14)

But, they didn't make it easy for themselves, even after the Chicago was left with their 3rd stringer, who made it a nailbiter by the end. D, punting and their QB saving a TD after his own turnover were key.

J-E-T-S

I started being into sports in the mid-90s, so the start of things might be the NYJ being up 10-0 at the Half in '99, the QB getting hurt at the start of the next season and work from there. Others have much longer memories. Let's see how we feel later. (Go Packs too.)

Love On A Dime

A bit more on this historical Christian romance novel referenced last time. The book concerns a young Christian woman, daughter of a banker, who secretly rights romance dime novels at the turn of the twentieth century. The novels have uplifting Christian messages, serving as her means to promote God's word and helping fund a missionary agency she serves to help poor immigrants, but still not the sort of thing proper for high society.

Thus, a threat by a gossip column to reveal her true identity scares her as much as her publisher (who is also her former flame, leaving her a few years back when he heard her parents discussing her he was not successful enough for her) wanting her to expose herself to promote her brand to help his struggling business. The former flame comes back into her life once he becomes successful enough to perhaps win her back. But, someone else has caught her eye, a well off sort that in various ways could help her situation, including the well being of her ne-er-do-well brother. On the other hand, he is a bit of a drip, not very Christian and not supportive of her independence and more reclusive ways. Her old flame, on the other hand, is more Christian, someone she has passion for and your typical romantic hero.

Prime romance novel material. One major device in the book is delayed gratification. You obviously know how the book will end up, basically, but things are dragged out pretty long. This includes the author obviously having deep feelings for the publisher/former love but not trusting him enough to tell him she is the novelist, assuming someone she deep down knows is her true love can't be trusted with such information. At some point, and remember she is in her mid-twenties by now, she comes off as a ninny. This is standard "stupid plot" tactics found in many movies. Some misunderstanding or whatever is needed to delay the inevitable conclusion, including everyone realizing the right things.

I did like the main characters overall (as usual, a supporting character, her friend, is at times more interesting than the main character) but at some point did get tired of this device. After all, much is spoken about trusting in the Lord and all, and the right path is pretty clear. This includes trusting that writing in a way to promote God's message (and romance novels do seem to promote a certain morality, so that would be a logical route) will ultimately be understood by her family. As to the setting, we get more of a sense of the upper class set than the time exactly, though do learn the names of various types of carriages. I do think the book does a decent job transporting us into a different time and place.

So, I liked the book as light reading, and some of tad heavy-handed dialogue and such worked both as amusing and serious heart-felt drama, but would have liked it more if it cut to the chase a bit more quickly. Like many movies, it doesn't quite have enough material to properly fill up its running time. And, dragging things out diminishes a strong female lead. The moral focus of the book might turn off people who aren't into Christian literature, but it is really just a language used to address what non-religious literature could handle just somewhat differently. Many romances boil down to proper life choices and personal happiness.

Overall, not a bad free Kindle book.

TV and Other Thoughts

I with TPM and am a tad bit shocked when I heard that apparently out of the blue that Keith Olbermann just had his last show. Really? Is that how it works? You have long and successful show, then you suddenly don't? Seems a tad arbitrary and unfair that fans did not get more of a warning. And, though I think he is a bit of a blowhard, I will miss his voice. Plus, the Young Turks or Chris Hayes would make a better replacement than an uber insider like O'Donnell.

A Christian friendly channel (shades of PAX) airs two shows that are among my current syndication favs -- Doc and Sue Thomas FB Eye, the latter having a theme song that is currently stuck in my mind. And, guess what: an actor on the program later was on a show involving a 1890s detective that is currently on my viewing list. Never-ending, as I said recently. Anyway, a quick nod to Love On A Dime, a Christian historical romance taking place about the same time that I was able to download for free on Kindle. I actually am enjoying it though at times it is pretty over the top to the degree that it also works as a sort of parody at times.

Doc recently had a subplot that I knew was a must see -- the adopted (foster?) son of a character had to do a school paper on whether 'under God' should be in the Pledge. After doing a slipshod effort, his teacher told him to do a better job, checking out both points of view. Well, he did a better job, but still only gave the 'pro' side. This bothered his teacher in particular because of a crisis of faith he had as his brother died. It is useful to note that "Doc" is a Christian of an evangelistic bent, though the show as a whole doesn't dwell on it, except that his final emails to his mentor tend to have such a focus.

A bit in bad form to bring that up to your young student, but still, he should have actually covered both sides of the issue. This is so even if you think God exists and that the First Amendment is not violated by the phrase being there. What about Render Unto Caesar and all that? The suggestion at one point that the First Amendment was written the way it was to uphold Judeo-Christian values was really a bit much. What about Muslims? We are talking a NYC located show and are a few here, you know. Seventh Heaven, which I also liked, also stacked the deck like that.

Religion and faith is a big part of many people's lives and it is appreciated when programs recognize the fact. But, I think there can be some sort of middle ground here. The teacher came off biased, and he was in the sense that he shouldn't have expressed his religious views to a twelve year old student (I guess he is about that age) as strongly as he did. Still, the teacher was right to be upset that he only gave one side of the story, and should not faith be made only stronger by respectfully facing up to the alternative, but not losing faith in the end?

Meanwhile, sneering at true believers on the other side is pretty counterproductive in my book. I seemed to have gained a bit of respect from someone whose views are quite different from mind there. It upsets me when the other side doesn't seem to be listening. Just talking past me. It isn't really that pleasant even when I see it among people whose views I support.

Meanwhile In Actual NY Team News

The NYJ play in NJ. Meanwhile, NYC baseball teams make some moves. Andruw Jones [flashbacks to 1996] and Willie Harris [great catch, Mets lose!] now play for NY teams. The Yanks managed to make one overpriced major signing. And, the Mets continue to find various injured and scrub players. Fans dream of .500 for '11.

Supreme Court Watch: Win/Lose Edition

NASA v. Nelson is a typical win/lose ruling -- it narrowly decides the question at hand without being a big loss for either side. Yesterday, it was an oral argument that deals with the state secrecy doctrine.

The mega issue at stake in the first case is informational privacy. As noted by the ruling (see also, here), there are some references to such a constitutional liberty but the matter was never dealt with too carefully. The government employee background check involved here would not be a good place either, particularly since the government doesn't deny some sort of right exists. So, the right was assumed but a suitable government interest showed it was not an invalid violation. Justice Alito, who referenced a concern of government seeking too much private information last term, wrote the opinion.*

I can see how the matter could be problematic in certain cases but this appears to be the best way of doing things, especially since -- as the opinion notes -- the questions here are in some sense beneficial to the employees. This does not deny that there is a right to informational privacy, both as a basic substantive liberty interest [if you have a liberty over marital affairs, e.g., this includes some protection of the information there] and growing out (see Alito) of other rights such as freedom of association or Fourth Amendment concerns (e.g., "papers" include privacy over intimate diaries and such). Such a case is probably out there, but particularly with this Court, judicial minimalist opinions to deal with cases like this (which do reach many people given the number of government employees even in this agency) are appreciated in a fashion as well.

I'm less gung ho about a state secrecy case up for oral argument yesterday. As noted here and elsewhere, the Supreme Court didn't seem to have much concern about challenging the underlining corrupt premise that allows the U.S. government to avoid relief in civil cases via an overly broad state secrecy doctrine. As shown in this extraordinary rendition case, state secrecy can promote injustice both before, during and after the fact. In the midst of the Cold War, three hard-nosed FDR appointees agreed with a lower court judge who took a different approach. As I quoted in the link above:

One of the principal checks is furnished by the independent judiciary which the Constitution established. Neither the executive nor the legislative branch of the Government may constitutionally encroach upon the field which the Constitution has reserved for the judiciary by transferring to itself the power to decide justiciable questions which arise in cases or controversies submitted to the judicial branch for decision.

The justices themselves yesterday flagged the "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy of the government (the Obama Administration supporting the practice), but a "greedy" governmental contracting company is not likely to be a promising case for the Supreme Court to do much. As Scalia noted, more likely they will use it to say "go away." No big deal for this group, but more so when torture victims and others are trying to obtain a semblance of justice.

Judicial minimalism, especially of the sort that leans in a certain ideological direction, is a matter of winning some, losing some. The Roberts Court will be a repeated game of getting what you can and avoiding losing as well.

---

* During oral argument, Justice Sotomayor raised some concern about the limits of how much information the government could seek out while the question of what information they can share also arose. But, the Obama Administration did not wish to deal with the issue, a limiting of the scope that with which Justice Ginsburg was quite on board. Interestingly, Ginsburg concurred briefly in two right to counsel cases today, narrowly joining unanimous rulings against the defense.

Scalia/Thomas wrote separately today to argue that they don't think informational privacy is protected by the Constitution, Scalia annoyed Nelson didn't cite a clause even though the government never denied it existed. Why citing precedent and the like isn't enough is therefore too upsetting is somewhat unclear. And, see here, any truth to his "fake" minimalist point is belied by how selectively he cares about it in practice.