People's Support of A Right to Health Care

This article explains the PPACA as an expression of the people that "the right to health care was a fundamental human right that warranted protection by the federal government." See my take on that point. The recent book also concerns a case that confirmed (like Heller for guns) the majority view of modern liberty protections.

VC Joins the Dark Side

I didn't care for it when Slate joined the Facebook generation in a unilateral way and don't like it with Volokh Conspiracy.  The format is tiresome on various levels and others agree.  Heck with it. 

Voter Id

Rick Hasen, who blogs about election law and has a forthcoming book on the "voting wars" and  a sneak peek on the "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad" [I originally noted the $2 sample chapter download; there is a smaller sample provided for free; I still find the $2 cost silly for a work of this sort.] summarizes:

1. Republican legislature passes voter identification law making spurious claims about how such a law is necessary to prevent voter fraud.
2. Democrats and good government groups object, arguing the measure is intended to suppress Democratic votes (true), and file lawsuits.
3. Democrats exaggerate the likely effects of the voter identification requirement on voter turnout.
4.  Courts split on the legal question, often along the party lines of the judges.

This has received national attention, including from Eric Holder, whose Justice Department rejected more than one new law in states covered by the Voting Rights Act. Anyway, Hasen's basic conclusion is that such laws might not do much (it's hard to tell) overall, but given the selective partisan nature of the support and that a fundamental right is at stake, they still are a bad idea overall.  The burden is on the other side.

This "both sides aren't equally wrong" principle is shown over and over again in modern day political battles, leading me to quite tired by the "each side does it" brigade that butt in from time to time, suggesting you know they are just stating some neutral viewpoint and all, understanding how people like myself (you know, Obama loving partisans) can be passionate by one side in particular.  I lay it on a bit thick for emphasis.

#3 is notable too. Those who support rights tend to "exaggerate" somewhat.  People for a certain cause are not known to be totally neutral about it.  They often speak in broad terms, sometimes citing parades of horribles about let's say free speech.  You know, ban obscenity and next the orgasm scene from When Harry Met Sally would be banned (after all, the film Carnal Knowledge was an early target, leading to Usurper Court review to say "well, we didn't mean that"). This has some force, if a certain degree of perspective is held.  The other side well earned their distrust.

I recognize Prof. Hasen's overall argument and that he is on "our" side here, but it still warrants a reminder that the reference needs a bit of context.  For instance, he earlier referenced a NPR interview with someone who supports voter ids, particularly because people show it to cash checks and so forth.  [If he means picture ids, I don't.  I use a bank card.  If I gave it to someone with my password, they could cash checks without showing id.]  Since the issue is that (1) voting is more important than cashing checks and (2) the type of id allowed (3) etc., this was not very helpful to me. In fact, it was annoying, since it avoided the hard questions. The interviewer, per usual, didn't follow-up.  Grr.

I look forward to the book, but will not spend $2 for a sample.  Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow (see her blog etc.)  provides a video introduction to her upcoming book and a sample is provided gratis.  I reserved the book at my library along with one by Ms. Ledbetter, interviewed on her show. 

Body of Proof

One of the better episodes last night tossed in yet another character drama, but this one actually reflects the diabetes of the teenage actress involved. On Twitter, she notes has had it for 2.5 years. The NCIS repeat was decent (Gibbs bio stuff) but too many people killed.

Flagrant Conduct

And Also:  I referenced and posted some video of the empty controversy here but as I noted in comments there, the idea that support of race based affirmative action is "racist" is standard trope for the FOX crowd and being shocked about it is a bit naive.

The ratifiers of the ninth amendment didn't have to worry about the right to abortion since abortion wasn't illegal before quickening in 1789. I do think those who pushed for the ninth and tenth amendment felt such rights as decisions of family size and choice, control of their bodies, and the like was included.  A free society that would say not allow you to have any more children after a certain point isn't that free.  The rights also change through time -- homosexuality was until 1973 or so was seen as a mental disorder for instance.  I for one think many of the ratifiers would call anti-sodomy laws garbage since they were a randy bunch and some homosexual.

That is a bit of ancient history recently found on the web (via a bulletin board before I even knew about any World Wide Web as such) -- think early Clinton years -- underlining how long I've been talking about such things. The issue of homosexual rights, rights that are so interesting and important to me because they are but subsets of more basic things, continue to this day.  We are all just passing thru a much longer battle.

A seminal case here is Lawrence v. Texas, the personal story (overall history and legal matters are handled, but those looking for detail there should look elsewhere) covered by an excellent new book entitled Flagrant Conduct. As noted by a review by Dahlia Lithwick and here, one surprising thing about the case is that the "couple" involved not only were not really one, but were probably not even having sex when "caught" by the police.  As noted by Prof. Dorf., this wouldn't be the first time the courts decided the law on "facts" that might not match what actually happened. The Supreme Court clearly is concerned and influenced by facts, but ultimately they rule on law.

[Update: One bit of trivia explains why the state D.A. delayed beginning his argument (see the Oyez.com audio) -- he found a watch left behind by someone and showed it to the marshal.  No one claimed the watch at that time.]

The charm of the case for the movement was that it provided a window into challenging a law that clearly had nefarious effects but was rarely directly at issue in our criminal actions, if ever in purely private avenues. Bowers v. Hardwick also involved an accidental discovery, but the two there to my knowledge actually was having sex.  The apparent truth was apparently driven by the discriminatory actions of the lead officer in the case and furthered by the motivations behind a law that only targeted one group of people. The law -- like the use statute in Griswold v. Connecticut -- was in no way toothless. It's force was nefarious for its "closeted" nature.  This was recognized in the opinion itself.

The book notes how important bars were and I guess continue to be in some sense to the movement for equality here.  They provided a public place for gays and lesbians to meet and associate.  This is not atypical.  Taverns were a major meeting place for those upset at the British in the days before the Revolutionary War as well.  As with coffeehouses, they were a primary social meeting place for the masses and often for the elites too.  The importance for protest and personal association is clear.

[Update: Rachel Maddow mentioned last night that America Samoa Republican delegates yesterday were being chosen at a bar. Thanks to the the Pacific delegates, Romney had a thin win delegate-wise last night.

There is a chance that Romney will receive a few too little delegates by the end of the process. This provides the also rans, even perhaps Paul, significant power.  Other than the fact that these guys have little else on their plate at the moment and it's a long-shot any of them will win in November, this makes it logical for them to stay in the race.]

This raises questions about Dallas v. Stanglin (1989), which rejects a broad right to social association, there at dance clubs. Somewhat strangely,* Brennan and Marshall went along with the dismissal even though Stevens and Blackmun noted:

the opportunity to make friends and enjoy the company of other people — in a dance hall or elsewhere — is an aspect of liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

though not as a First Amendment right of association as such. They thought the law, which restricted certain dance halls to those between 14-18, reasonable and in fact arguably helpful toward that end.  So, they would have upheld the law on narrower grounds. The main opinion rejected expanding an earlier ruling (by Brennan) that protected intimate association among small groups or larger "expressive" associations to cover such "recreational dancing." Rehnquist noted such things as "meeting one's friends at a shopping mall" does not involve First Amendment protections.

But, meeting friends is repeatedly a means to associate with others to talk and relate.  And, going to the bar or dancing is also a means to do that sort of thing.  It is a prime means to associate with others, often of a similar racial, sexual orientation or other class of people.  It is not "high" importance to express opinions and the like, sure, but it very often has that value. At the very least, contra the opinion, it has an "intimate association" context.  What exactly is "socializing" if not partially that?

I won't cite it, but this reminds me of another case where the Chief Justice dismissed the idea that internet message boards and the like can be a sort of public forum.  It's a fairly limited view of things.  The case could have decided narrowly enough without going that far.  It is sensible as a time, place and manner matter to judge that teenagers should have their own place to hang out.  There are teenage sections of the library, so why not teenage dance halls and skating risks?  The reasonableness given the age of the patrons and the possible problems of adults (including as to drugs or perhaps sexually) interacting there -- especially since there were places for mixed company allowed -- was enough to uphold the statute. 

Some have noted that Lawrence v. Texas protects fleeting sexual acts as much as more long lasting relationships, just as earlier cases protected contraceptive uses for such things. It is also important to protect avenues where such relationships can originate, including social meeting places. These matters are part of the wider liberty involved and should not be diminished as unimportant or trivial in nature even if they are not as intimate and privileged as more private spaces.

---

* [re-edited] The basic logic can be that the main opinion, though arguably somewhat weakly, re-affirmed the right to intimate and expressive association and that it is important to separate the most important and threatened aspects of these rights. Thus, family privacy would mean a lot more than meeting in a public place to dance with a bunch of people (as compared to a law that limits same sex dancing, e.g.).

I understand the idea there and recall a lower court opinion that rejected trying to force causal chit-chat and hanging out with friends into rights usually left for more important things.  Still, I think this can be taken too far and that it is important to recognize (as did the concurrence) that there is a liberty interest of some importance here as well. The concurring opinion recognized this without putting them all on the same level. 

Romeo and Juliet

The first film watched to match the plays shown on Slings and Arrows is the Franco Zeffirelli version of this seminal tragic love story. Well done adaption with the added charm of teen actors as leads.

Mets' Tim Byrdak headed for DL

Others hurting.  '12 motto: low expectations.

Army Wives

Decent episode with various subplots. Touching goodbye of a character that started off seeming a bit of a b. Nice goings on with the adopted son. Some signs of trouble brewing.

Quick Answer

For me, neither "atheism" or "theism" without detail amount to much, the details very well potentially "religious."

DST

Josh Lewin (Sunday Game)

Again, he sounds informed and all, but his diction and such is so bland. I guess you have to look at the positive, the path to surviving this Mets season as a whole. Santana hopeful; new relievers ... work in progress. Player health, disconcerting. Murphy, still playing.

Power to Kill

And Also: Very good panel discussion on Israel on Chris Hayes' show today, him repeatedly noting how Palestinians (represented by the woman from Miral) seem not to be part of the conversation except when they use violence. It is striking to me how the "two state solution" underlines how different things are from our country. Imagine if that was the path taken in 1863. 

President Obama, who came to office promising transparency and adherence to the rule of law, has become the first president to claim the legal authority to order an American citizen killed without judicial involvement, real oversight or public accountability.

-- "The Power to Kill" (NYT Editors)

This is how an op-ed that agrees with a lot of what Holder said in his recent speech began.  Such an introduction is the sort of thing that takes a lot of air out of the room.  What does "real oversight" or "public accountability" mean?  Does Congress have no oversight over this sort of thing?  Did Obama oppose it?  What does "public accountability" mean?  Isn't this very op-ed but part of that?  And, did Lincoln think his military couldn't kill people during the Civil War without judicial involvement first?

To me, this is a prime case of needing to understand the basic issues at hand.  The matter arises as to the PPACA. Repeatedly, even when places like SCOTUSBlog discuss the matter, patently untrue things are said like "everyone" has to "purchase" insurance or they will be "fined."  When the conversation begins on the wrong foot, something like assuming that each time a person uses "birth control pills" they are having sex, how can we manage to have a fruitful conversation?  The whole thing is corrupted.

The op-ed ends with an opinion that I share:

The administration should seek a court’s approval before killing an American citizen, except in the sort of “hot pursuit” that justifies the police shooting of an ordinary suspect. There should be consequences in the event of errors — which are, tragically, made, and are the great risk. And the administration should publish the Office of Legal Counsel memo. We cannot image why Mr. Obama would want to follow the horrible example set by Mr. Bush in withholding such vital information from the public.

This "court" according to the op-ed can be like the FISA Court, not an ordinary federal judicial action.  When Congress first gave the President the power to call up the militia to use force against some domestic disorder, there was a provision that required a federal judge confirm that the situation was such that normal police action was not significant.* 

President Washington did not simply call forth the militia (in fact, leading it himself) during the Whiskey Rebellion.  He first obtained the okay from a federal judge.  If so, the same should be possible before killing a U.S. citizen except in the "hot pursuit" (see, e.g., TN v. Garner) scenario, which would include the battlefield (what that entails can be a sub-question) or the heat of the moment during a raid that aims to get a Bin Laden.  And, the memo should be made public.  While Dennis Kucinich rails against Obama and the woman who beat him, e.g., he can lead the movement in Congress (with certain Tea Party sorts) to subpoena the document.

I myself, maybe it's my problem, sometimes find it hard to get pass the dust to get to the core issues here.  But, that is the bottom line.  There are basic lines along with a lot of troubling power, some of which is legitimate in fact or as understood by current law.  Working within the no extremes approach that ala Gibbs on NCIS would be one of my rules, we should understand the whole picture there. And, I appreciate how the op-ed ends a lot more than how it begins. The beginning seems like some sort of necessary boilerplate before the real core of the situation is covered.

Let's stick with the latter.

---

*  The Militia Act of 1792, in part:

And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. 

This is statutory, so is not a matter of the courts on their own ruling on the question, perhaps avoiding the "political question" problem.  Imagine if such a rule was in place today!

Rev. Joe

Fran Drescher's (best known from The Nanny and her tell tale voice) latest show is Happily Divorced and reflects her own life in that she too found out that her husband was gay. As sort of promotion connected to the show, she decided to have a contest in which she would officiate three same sex weddings.

As Conan O'Brien did, she went the route of the ULC Church or rather an offshoot known as the ULC Monastery.  Both are accepted by New York City for purposes of being marriage officiants though the matter is a bit more complicated in the courts. As I have noted in the past, readers of NYT wedding announcements will notice from time to time that same sex couples are married by ULC ministers, a personal means to sanctify the proceedings to reflect one's own religious and spiritual beliefs.  

The NYT article notes:

“Even though I am Jewish, I take no offense at being a minister or called Rev. Drescher,” she said. “Love is love. I’m not a divisionist; I am a uniter.” [The title is optional.]

What kind of advice does she offer? “Don’t expect your partner to be everything you need in life,” she said. “Have other friendships to fill the voids. But if you have found someone who shares your values, be happy and be well.”

Drescher, who is also a cancer survivor (and earlier a victim of sexual violence) is naturally someone who various people might relate to.  Given her background, it would make sense that same sex couples might like her to officiate the proceedings or they might just like to meet a celebrity.  I am glad that my state has recognized same sex unions and my city the wishes of those who wish to have ULC ministers officiate, truly recognizing "the right to worship as [they] pleased." Here the sacrament of marriage:

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Good luck to all she marries.  

Josh Lewin

I listened to part of today's Mets game on the radio, the game not on t.v.  Howie Rose was not there today, so I don't about this but this from his old haunts seemed more like it today.  Lewin sounded stiff and generic like the guy he replaced. Technically okay but boring.

The True Palin

On Lawrence O'Donnell (a political insider himself and one of the people behind West Wing), he as well as Nicolle Wallace (strongly anti-Palin McCain insider who later wrote two books on a Republican woman President that Rachel Maddow liked a lot) noted their admiration for the upcoming HBO film Game Change. I probably will take a look at it, but Andrew Sullivan previewed it by suggesting it provides a much too positive look at Palin herself (who is going around, shocker, denouncing the film). 

Anyone with even the faintest grasp of Palin's reality - including former close aides like Frank Bailey - understands that she is emotionally unstable, paranoid, vindictive, self-destructive, religiously fanatical and clinically deluded. Her "wonderful mothering" led her to take a tiny child with Down Syndrome and parade him in front of the cameras as a political prop, and later hauling him out half-naked at night to show off to fans on her book tour. None of her children has made it to college; one was a teenage vandal, another a teen mom. A man who lived in her house, says her children had to raise themselves. She quit office in mid-term because her vanity and rapacity were more important to her than public service. The victims of her vicious career lie strewn all over Alaska. Anyone faintly aware of reality also knows that John McCain was as cynical, brutal and expedient a figure as anyone to run for president - and that Palin's selection was an act of such grotesque vanity and cynicism that it instantly disqualified him from the presidency.

Don't sugar coat it, Andrew.  I think the analysis is overall fair. [Second thought there is that he is a bit too one-sided there and a bit over the top. "Victims of vicious career strewn all over Alaska" is a bit much.] It is striking how visceral my distaste of Republican candidates have been since 2000.  I didn't support but in no way find it distasteful that people might vote for Bush41 or Bob Dole.  On the other hand, finding Bush43 or McCain/Palin as credible candidates was on some basic level (to repeat myself) risible.  There are those who now were just shocked at how Bush turned out after they saw him as a sane choice in 2000.  Molly Ivins and others told us then that was wrong.  By 2004, as seen even by Meghan McCain, we knew it.  More so in '08 and now in '12.  It is not polite to say so, but we should sometimes be blunt about it. 

Also, I don't agree exactly with everything Andrew Sullivan says here in response to the Derrick Bell video controversy (see my embedded video below), but it is a reasonable analysis of the sort I appreciate.

[Update: The movie was decent -- I think the leads worked well overall  and we got some of the behind the scenes stuff, but it wasn't special or anything.  I think it got weaker as it went on with the second half pretty dull at times. The negatives of Palin as unprepared, above her pay grade, overwhelmed and having some delusions of grandeur was touched upon. I don't really think Sullivan is totally fair in thinking her character was too soft here and besides that would not be dramatically useful.

I think it could be sharper over all.  Mixed vote.  This is from a certain type of viewer of the political scene, of course, others might get more from this sort of thing.  Also, moments like people in the film explaining their connection to Palin or the ugliness of the campaign in certain respects.  So many like me see that talked about so much already but the average person who is not so bloggy etc.  might very well get more out of that.]

Real Fake Chicken?

NYT has its twenty articles only policy now though Google Reader and such services allows you to access them for free thus far (I am not always able to find every article this way, but it mostly does the trick).  Also, sometimes when I access links off-site, they don't count.  Nonetheless, you can access the video features found on the front page of the website even after your twenty articles are up.  Note that I also embedded a couple videos on my blog since blogger makes that pretty easy to do.

One such video now available on the NYT website is "Real Fake Chicken: Mark Bittman Tests a Plant-Based ‘Chicken’," connected to an article he also wrote.  The article notes:

IT is pretty well established that animals are capable of suffering; we’ve come a long way since Descartes famously compared them to nonfeeling machines put on earth to serve man. (Rousseau later countered this, saying that animals shared “some measure” of human nature and should partake of “natural right.”) No matter where you stand on this spectrum, you probably agree that it’s a noble goal to reduce the level of the suffering of animals raised for meat in industrial conditions.

I'm not sure how many people really think much about this "noble goal," but if it didn't really cost them anything, they probably would being willing to accept that it would be nice if something can be done.  Not that many rather think about what happens to cows, pigs and so forth before they become beef, pork and so forth.

There are four ways to move toward fixing this. One, we can improve the animals’ living conditions; two (this is distasteful but would shock no one), we might see producers reduce or even eliminate animals’ consciousness, say, by removing the cerebral cortex, in effect converting them to a kind of vegetable [book cited]; three, we can consume fewer industrially raised animals, concentrating on those raised more humanely.  Or four, we can reduce consumption, period.

There has been some efforts made to improve living conditions ever since animal welfare became a national issue in the United Kingdom in the early 19th Century.  See, e.g, For the Love of Animals.  Temple Grandin has also been a leader in improving the plight of animals raised for food.  I had a debate regarding her efforts here, a law blog that is vegan friendly though they often don't make an issue of it (likewise, I'm a vegetarian, but I don't tend to broadcast it).  The second "way" is striking but though factory farming already robs many animals of half their existence, we aren't there.


Reducing consumption as a whole is the best policy. We overconsume generally in this country and it is in no way limited to animal products.  Something of an aside: I'm tired of plastic bags.  Let's say I go to the local fruit store to buy bagels and a tomato.  The bagels go into one of those little plastic bags which are hard to open.  The tomato can fit inside.  If I did not say "no," I would be given another plastic bag.  I go to the bakery.  I get a linzer tart (a jelly cookie) and a bagel.  A paper bag for each (the powder can't corrupt the bread!) and again, a plastic bag is offered.  Go to the store to get mouthwash.  Another plastic bag.  And, let's not forget the supermarket.  The relatively small amount of groceries that fits in one not too large carry on bag results in six to eight plastic bags easily.

I received a free carry-on via some promotion and have a small messenger type bag I tend to carry around as well as another one for other purposes.  So, I generally say "no" to all these plastic bags.  It is tedious. It is a lot easier to take the darn things.  I then collected them up and took them back to the local supermarket which has a bin for them.  A few of the little bags are saved to collect recyclables.  But, many wouldn't do that.  I do notice they sell those reusable carry-on bags and some plastic bags (like for a local health food store) are strong enough that many probably re-use them too.  Still, this underlines how even easy non-consumption is not so.

That is, it takes a bit of effort, but still isn't really that hard if some thought is involved.  This is the case with meat substitutes. For one thing, there are many options other than meat.  Many cultures have for economic or other reasons little occasion to have animal products, at least certain major types of such products.  The rice and beans of Mexico, for instance, is a staple food. Other times the inclusion is rather gratuitous. It is amazing how many products, including something like "vegetable soup," can have some sort of animal product in it, including chicken.  Cereal or bread often has milk added to it in the back end of the ingredients. 

When you take Brown’s product, cut it up and combine it with, say, chopped tomato and lettuce and mayonnaise with some seasoning in it, and wrap it in a burrito, you won’t know the difference between that and chicken.

No need to cite a specific meat substitute here though the video focuses on one specific type of chicken alternative.  In fact, many people who have no interest in the matter might be eating various processed foods extended with some sort of textured vegetable protein (TVP) or such.  Various dishes -- think steak and onions -- might not be easily replaced in this fashion, but so many can be.  I buy TVP cubes myself and they are very tasty (after being marinated) on bagels, in soups and mixed with pasta or rice.  High quality is not what is sought for when we get chicken strips in our salads. There are some good options there, don't get me wrong, but that often isn't even a main factor.  It is so easy to replace a large quality of our animal products without losing much at all.

Of course, they have to be readily available in the first place.  Sure, people can make their own dishes. I have various cookbooks myself.  I don't actually use them mind you, since (1) boiling water for pasta the right way is an accomplishment for me (2) everything seems to require about ten ingredients, most of which you cannot just purchase one serving of.  Consider even making waffles via a waffle maker I received as a gift.  Messy business.  So much easier to just heat a couple up.  So, many aren't going to make faux chicken wraps.  They need to be readily available.

The increase availability of vegetarian and vegan alternatives is appreciated.  Take soy milk.  I personally like plant based milks better than regular milk overall.  Some do not.  But, many do appreciate the taste and others appreciate them because they might be lactose intolerant or perhaps for a religious reason (something about mixing foods).  And, unlike let's say ten or twenty years ago, it is fairly common to see soy milk, and your average supermarket is likely to have some.  For instance, Deals, which is a local discount store, had both soy and almond milk.  Price-wise it also is reasonable though sometimes you have get it the right place.

Any path to improved living requires some degree of effort but also some availability and easy access.  The theme can be found in any number of areas including let's say treating women correctly or easy access for the handicapped.  The possibilities are there and it is hopeful to know it.

One Manning Is Enough

I'm a NY football fan (well, NY/NJ) so like the Jets and Giants.  Mark Sanchez is the best option; he needs a better team around him.  He's not Eli yet there.  Peyton Manning is not the answer.  It's a risk and we already went that route with Brett Favre. No thanks. [Jets: Ditto]

Self-Delusion Alert

I find the constitutional arguments against the PPACA risible. I am a bit superstitious in saying that but let's be honest here.  This too is risible.  The "mandate" was suggested in the 1990s.  And, no other Commerce Clause challenge? Really?  Meanwhile, on the tax issue.

[Update: Someone later provided details on the 1990s point but also loki13 in effect patted him on the head for being such an effective advocate. He might be but not really in a positive sense since his reasoning is specious. This isn't just a game.]

Privacy and "argue" over "assert"

Prof. Allen summaries "at least" six aspects of "privacy" in this thread.  It is appreciated.  I also note some discomfort with the use of "assert" as in "s/he asserted such and such" instead of "argues" and how the former implies dismissing the other side with an edge.

Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall

I referenced this mostly interesting collection here and re-read it, including it dealing with the origins of judicial review and what is now done via "substantive due process."  The 1865-73 and 1910s are two other periods that deserve more attention.  Past is prologue.