TV Watch

Necessary Roughness was pretty good last night -- it's an enjoyable summer series with some nutritional value. Better Mets result: Capauno was not stretched too far and the bullpen didn't have to come into a mess. Yanks continue to lose to Sox.

Film Quickies

Starting to catch up on films via the library. I share this review's stance on Soul Sister about a teen surfer who lost her arm: nice enough, but not enough drama. Meanwhile, an older film: Falling for Grace was okay until trite plot points bored me. Two commentaries!

Stretching Your Starter Too Far Watch

Pelfrey gutted out six last time with 125, was slipping but gutted out six this time with 99. He was about done. He was left in, and in and one lousy "wheel play" attempt later, a 0-0 score became 5-0. Well, that (second) use of Parnell Monday up 5-1 might not matter.

TV Update

Nice if not that funny Wizards.  Some interesting character stuff was the best thing about Drop Dead Diva.  Good episode of The Closer.  Decent Rizzoli, but I still find the show somewhat forced.  Good NY sports night with three games.

Pardon me ...

I'm not a big fan of giving money to beggars, but hated when the subway had signs telling us not to.  The name of the game is a gimmick beyond the pathetic whine approach.  There is a lot of creativity here, including various types of performers, which gets somewhat boring for regular travelers, but is actually appreciated by others.  The pathetic whine approach (I'm being a bit mean here) is not really as appreciated, particularly as you are trying to go about your business.  A person actually went inside a post office today with that approach, asking me for money while I was at the counter -- this was deemed a bit gauche by another customer, even though she was given money by at least one person. 


The issue has various implications, including (to cite a concern of this blog) First Amendment concerns.  Giving to beggars after all is a type of charity, charity being protected under the First Amendment.  Various time, place and manner issues also arise.  For instance, outside of a subway vs. inside a subway. This article covers some various issues.  Again, I don't like giving to beggars since it is somewhat of a crapshoot, though this after hearing someone warning another not to donate to a certain animal charity because it spends so little on the actual animals.  I say they use the money mostly for free gifts like cheap personalized calculators, but seriously, even if much of the money is going to overhead, the organization is still helping animals.  The use of the money given to a beggar is somewhat less shall we say on the books. I don't give to various things though, doesn't stop me from thinking that they have the right to ask. 

Beggars have always been with us and provide an in your face way to be reminded about various social problems.  I think it's protected speech and abusive begging can be targeted not by outlawing begging as such (which I think can only be pushed aside just so much anyway)  but the particular incidents.  There can be certain time, place and manner restrictions.  It would be more understandable, if barely enforceable, to restrict begging inside subway cars where no one can walk away.  Or, outside of certain places like ATMs.  The asking for money in public places is starting to be less annoying than certain phone solicitations.  At home. 

Back to the inspiration for this entry.  I do find it annoying when begging seems to be in "inappropriate" places, that is, places where I don't expect it to occur.  The subways and various Manhattan locations are expected. Certain places in my outer borough or well yeah, the post office, not so much. Relatively speaking, one can deal with it -- again, there are more annoying things in the scheme of things. I don't scream about begging after all, while I do want to scream about certain things in the news.  Still, there is a sort of expected realm where this thing is not done. For instance, I while reading on a bench, I do not want some asshole to come up and not take "no" for an answer, especially when I'm in causal clothes that don't exactly scream "this guy has money."  This occurred once and I laughed it off, but you can imagine there can be a bit of concern there. 

And, overall, the pathetic whine is like nails on a chalkboard. I don't like various types of whining overall, who does?  Sometimes, we might whine a bit ourselves. But, we are not really that proud of it, and sometimes annoy ourselves. So, we are consistent.  I'm not using the royal "we" here, by the way.  And, why not stand outside the post office?  It was nice today -- it is pretty amazing how nice it looks after Irene passed through.  Still, I guess -- pathetic whine voice aside -- you got to respect the chutzpah.  Why go the few blocks to the subway?  Ah, too easy and boring.  The bank actually might have a security guard.  The post office just has a couple people behind bullet proof glass.  And, people might have a bit of money ready.  Oh well.

Irene: Not really a big deal for me

For the first time in my life, to my knowledge, the local transportation system was shut down for most of the weekend.  I took a bus out of the city Saturday afternoon and back in Monday morning.  Irene affected lots of people, but overall, wasn't as bad as it could have been.  I wonder how a Katrina incident would have played here.

Vera Farmiga

I was impressed with her work in Never Forever and her first directorial effort dealing with religious faith etc. looks very promising.  Good interview -- I concur on Anne of Green Gables!  This is why she cites Anne as her favorite fictional heroine:

For her enthusiasm, her self-acceptance and distinguished self image, her whimsy, the joy she spreads, the way she uses her words, her expression, her big ideas and her big words. “I’m not a bit changed–not really. I’m only just pruned down and branched out. The real me, back here, is just the same.” For “There’s such a lot of different Annes in me. I sometimes think that is why I’m such a troublesome person. If I was just the one Anne it would be ever so much more comfortable, but then it wouldn’t be half so interesting.” And for her phrase “kindred spirits”.

Put aside the personal commentary at the end and I don't know who my "favorite" is (find that hard to answer too), but the spirit is right.  As to her favorite food, must taste Marmite some day. 

Irene Pending, the Dog Has Her day

Irene has led to various changes in NYC -- the subway system, which was running by the afternoon of 9/11 -- included.  The Mets only have one game this weekend and it was a bright light in the darkness, a gem by Capauno PLUS some offense and defense vs. the Braves. 

SSM Issues

Various examples can be cited to underline the tedium cited yesterday and the discussion over at SCOTUSBlog regarding same sex marriage is but an example. Charles Fried highlights the point, just as he does when he finds the ACA litigation so lame:

Harvard law professor and former Solicitor General Charles Fried argues that although a legislative solution would be ideal, a narrow ruling invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act is preferable to a broad ruling in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

I am not sure same sex marriage in particular being protected violates his not "forced by a Supreme Court ruling to celebrate what they deplore" standard while some ninety-something marrying a twenty-something or yet another marriage/divorce/marriage does not. Regardless, the basic illegitimacy of denying federal benefits to state recognized marriages only in this area is recognized by him.

The same sex marriage issue is standard by now, enough rulings alone to be tired of the various boilerplate arguments.  But, DOMA is particularly offensive to me.  States already were not required to recognize out of state marriages that violated their public policy and any possible loopholes (some "judgments" arising from them) were tiny.  Singling out same sex marriages even there would seem problematic, not a "general law" for purposes of full faith and credit. As to Section Three, why should this one type of marriage (cf. common law or cousin marriages) be singled out?  And, the very title is Orwellian -- "Defense of Marriage" by harming many who are, by various criteria including state law, already married.

The consistent libertarian recognizes these things and some will be on the right side here, even if they are on the wrong side on the ACA (where the "liberty" to submit to corporate health insurance policy and free ride is fought for).  But, the discussion still has the usual, now tedious, components. One is that we have to face a New Deal Era restructuring of rights and governmental power where only certain "fundamental" liberties are respected.  Just as it is false that pre-New Deal courts protected liberty more (as if; it didn't even overturn that many economic related laws, deemed a good or bad thing depending on one's philosophy, having a weaker "arbitrariness" standard that circa the New Deal was strengthened at least for some liberties), this is wrong.  The important Corfield v. Coryell (1825) ruling underlines this:

We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.

That is, there are certain rights that are "fundamental" that must be put to a higher standard, not just a general "liberty" that the government needs to justify infringing in some fashion. See also, the Ninth Amendment, which (sorry Randy Barnett) doesn't reference some "presumption to liberty" as such, but "other rights" (see, e.g., this book) retained by the people. This is clearly a broad category, but it is not limitless.  And, it makes perfect sense to use various criteria, be it precedent, building off rights listed or so forth to determine these rights, particularly if courts are doing so to strike down popularly passed legislation. This process, as with the interpretation of enumerated rights, powers and other matters, develops over time in a common law fashion, a written Constitution providing one restraining force along with others such as the limited power of the courts in the first place.  As with interracial marriage, yes, marriage changes in the process.* 

We have the usual tripe that if actually consistently applied would be problematic. For instance, we are reminded that certain studies support the value of "two biological parents," but that can't be too helpful.  If it was, single parents who wish to re-marry should be stopped from doing so, since the alternative might encourage divorce and separation of biological parents. And, what are these "different gifts" brought by mothers and fathers? Gender stereotyping for $100, Alex. Anyways, without marriage, same sex (or blended) families would still exist.  They just would be harmed more by being denied basic protections.

Well, the saying "there is nothing new under the sun" is not new, so the fact that the same old issues are being covered over and over again, including many of the same all tropes, is to be expected.  This is furthered by people simply talking past each other.  I find this a lot online and it tires me out.  I spell out, taking time to do so, my position with support, and the reply ignores what I said and just restates the original flawed premises. This can go on forever as new flawed premises, often laden with attitude,  are drawn up, sometimes involving ignoring what was said.  And, equal standards too often don't apply, including standards of proof and respect.

The ability to find some common ground and to face up to the true matter of dispute is so important, but too often repeatedly not done.  Online and off, it is pretty depressing, aggravating and so on.  It really tires me out.  Still, the issues are interesting, essential and ever arising.  So, we solider on.

---

* The citation to Baker v. Nelson (1972) is used as a talisman for the anti-equality side but this usual trope is yet another tedious overused device that is much less important than some think. Not only is the Supreme Court judgment just a bare reference, much has changed since then (including in the area of sex discrimination) and the actual laws at issue tend to be much different, e.g., Prop 8 stripping rights while protecting gays in any number of other ways (a basically gratuitous bit of discrimination) vs. not applying old marriage laws to same sex couples. 

10 Christians Everyone Should Know

I received this book free via the Book Sneeze website in return for a review, not reliant on it being positive.

This attractive volume -- colorful color and easy to read text -- has an interesting title. Why exactly are these ten Christians so worthy of study so that "everyone" should know about them?  What lessons should we learn from them?  The ten are:

Saint Patrick
Galileo
Anne Bradstreet
John Bunyan
Johann Sebastian Bach
Jane Austen
D.L. Moody
George Washington Carver
Sergeant York
William F. Buckley, Jr.

The book as a whole does a good job of providing us with ten short biographies of this diverse set of historical figures.

Their importance as Christians are fairly easy to see in many cases, including some like Carver and Buckley -- known for other largely non-religious reasons -- who were guided by their Christian faith.  Jane Austen might not be someone you think of as a Christian figure at first blush, but the daughter of a minister, one who included ministers as important characters (both positive and negative) in her books, not surprisingly had a strong Christian faith. The fact she was still able to have such a wicked sense of humor and write novels many do not see as much motivated by religion as such only underlines the value of including her.  We see the various sides of Christianity's influence, including in music and literature.

A particularly interesting choice is Galileo, who we now think of as a sort of religious rebel, since his scientific views got him in trouble with the religious hierarchy of the day.  The fact the book examines his struggles here adds to its value and it does not try to sugarcoat things. We see that a person (with a close relative a member of the Church) can be generally faithful, but still get in trouble with the powers that be.  This is a lesson to Christians and everyone, down to the current day when certain members of the clergy get in trouble for their views.  The chapter ends with the note that the Catholic Church has recently (1990s) admitted some error occurred regarding his treatment.

Some of the chapters ends with a sort of summary of the individual's place in Christianity, that is, how their lives were guided by their faith.  Others take a more general approach that lays down the details of the person's life, ending with their death.  As a whole, the book (written by various authors) is a good account of each individual, providing some insights on how they can serve as models of Christian faith and actions.  I'm not sure that we are really told why these ten in particular are so important that everyone should know about them in particular.  They are each worthwhile of a chapter, but I'm sure others might find others to fill in a list of ten Christians of all time.  But, I appreciate the overall theme of them being chosen for their faith was not done in a heavy-handed way and the general reader can appreciate the book.

I think it was overall a good book, but not really above average.  Thus, three stars.  

Blah blah blah

We need new material. Mets suck (no surprise/they had some life).  Obama lame (not as lame as all that).  Republicans, including Perry, suck.  Depressing they have power. Ton of stuff about one aspect of the ACA.  SSM, same old arguments.  Economy sucks.  Rinse/repeat.

Let's Play Some Football!

NY/NJ football: the jailbird making the move to the Jets apparently okay though there is always the injuries and stuff.  NFL Network etc. allows us to see a lot more games (and QBs) that don't count.  Both teams should get to the playoffs. How far?  Well, let's see.

Grow the f-up.

The Mets are in freefall and like certain blogs/Obama, we have the "just a bunch of losers" sentiment, like the baby-ish hyperbole shown here.  Perspective is for wankers, huh? Meanwhile, watching Season 4 of The Closer on DVD.  Pretty good.  Was Brenda that emotional in S1?

Sunday

The new iCarly was decent -- Gibby had some sort of puberty thing, huh? Mets are in freefall with more toughies to come. Drop Dead Diva was a good steady episode with some "Deb" stuff. Good guest stars.

New Nick Episodes (Who Knew?)

Nick has tossed out iCarly, True Jackson (series finale) and Penguins new episodes without much warning. I caught most of TJ, which I liked at the beginning of its run but not so much later and it was okay. Kinda stupid. Well, this explains Amanda's bf.

Quixotic

Just Rubbing It In Our Face

The expression on a fan as the wonderful comeback (completed against K-Rod! who "won") was starting to fall apart (it took a bit of luck in the end to prevent a miracle save) fell apart was a great catch. Go D'Backs. ALC/NLW World Series? Ha ha ha! Oh well.

Big Legislation, Must Be More There Than One Thing

There is something to the PPACA other than the "individual responsibility requirement" (sic) though much of the debate focuses on that.  For instance, the law helped mental health and addiction care, furthering the ends of this somewhat bipartisan 2008 law.

Another Jackson Executed

These concerns overlook the meaning and full substance of the established proposition that the Eighth Amendment is defined by “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” [cite] Confirmed by repeated, consistent rulings of this Court, this principle requires that use of the death penalty be restrained. The rule of evolving standards of decency with specific marks on the way to full progress and mature judgment means that resort to the penalty must be reserved for the worst of crimes and limited in its instances of application. In most cases justice is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense. Difficulties in administering the penalty to ensure against its arbitrary and capricious application require adherence to a rule reserving its use, at this stage of evolving standards and in cases of crimes against individuals, for crimes that take the life of the victim.

-- Kennedy v. Louisiana (Justice Kennedy)

The attention given to the death penalty might seem a bit absurd given the limited number of people actually executed, even if we look to the days of yore before the current overabundance of litigation on the matter. The basic reason is that it hits to the core of our concern for our fellow citizens and residents overall, both their rights and security. After all, the basic trilogy often is cited as "life, liberty and property." The finality is another important aspect of the whole matter.  The importance of saving even one life here [to add something] also calls to mind a Christian parable, a theme repeated in others that in part has a theme of answering why so much effort is given to one person, one who often seems unworthy of it:

"Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn’t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it?  When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  When he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance." 

Thus, we have a few special cases of the Supreme Court addressing some final appeal in this area, including in the middle of their break.  I cited one such matter and now there is another, by chance with the person doing the heinous act having the same last name. This time two justices (Ginsburg/Sotomayor*) would have granted the stay. Sotomayor has shown a willingness to put herself out there to protect the rights of prisoners in certain cases, but has not personally addressed the death penalty directly as a justice yet. Justice Breyer has, even if he did not join Ginsburg's dissent or Stevens' concurrence in the protocol case:

The death penalty itself, of course, brings with it serious risks, for example, risks of executing the wrong person, risks that unwarranted animus (in respect, e.g., to the race of victims), may play a role, risks that those convicted will find themselves on death row for many years, perhaps decades, to come. [cites omitted].

Though this case also had other concerns (such as enough recognition of mitigating factors, which led a district court judge to grant habeas relief, later overturned on appeal), the new "cocktail" used was also cited as with the other Jackson. The case just cited (Baze v. Rees) requires some concern be provided when better alternatives are possible, but the fact Breyer and Stevens concurred on the matter underlines there is a lot of discretion still given. Thus, the use of pentobarbital (arising from foreign suppliers of the original drug not wanting to aid and abet capital punishment; the problem might still arise) was allowed. The concern arising (as Breyer cites, lethal injections for various reasons are not free from difficulties) led to an execution being filmed to help flag any problems.

When the cocktail case reached the Supreme Court a few years back, there addressing the safeguards used to ensure a paralyzing agent would not lead to the person being conscious but feeling the ultimate poison (leading at least one state to try a one drug cocktail without such an agent), at least one person I talked to who is strongly against the death penalty didn't really believe it was an issue. He saw it as a sort of makeweight to attack the death penalty through the side door by making it impossible to carry it out (see also, Alito's concurrence).

This isn't quite fair from my understanding of the issue, including per a discussion by someone with more direct knowledge of the matter (he is a defense lawyer and familiar with the practice) who talked about it on the Slate fray back then. There is some reason to be concerned about the flaws in the protocols used and the litigation hopefully will address the matter in a positive way. The methods were developed in at least a somewhat slipshod way (see, e.g., the opinions of Stevens and Ginsburg in Baze) and oversight over the carrying out of punishments is a core reason behind the Eighth Amendment concerns that drive the issue here.  It might not go far enough, but the plurality opinion in Baze v. Rees and other cases provides some real guidance, particularly if lower court judges and others involved takes the barrier to an "objectively intolerable risk of harm” seriously, a risk that does not only arise (per Scalia/Thomas) if the government blatantly intends to inflict it by use of things like the rack. 

It is partially a means to inhibit executions, particularly the foreign companies or governments who don't want their companies to help. Likewise, it is a way to keep the issue out there, a novel means in a way, while also showing that even lethal injections aren't some problem free way of officially killing people. We continue to be wary of executing even the usually rather horrible people involved here.

---

* As with a Sound of Music allusion on Victorious, how many viewers of A.N.T. Farm appreciated a Sotomayor joke?! One of those "for the parents" things, though given the theme of the show, more appropriate here.  It is a cute show; the upcoming Good Luck Charlie episode is as well.  Not overly funny as such, but pleasantly cute, particularly if you like the characters.  

Supreme Court Watch

The Supreme Court denied an appeal of Robert W. Jackson III, who was later executed for an axe murder during a burglary from twenty years back (seems pointless after all that time). This ended a bottleneck in Delaware arising from the protocol used.