Call Jane & Marry Sara

Call Jane is based on a true story (I checked out a recent version -- if before Dobbs -- of a book talking about it).  Some women had an abortion referral service before it was legal.  And, eventually, they themselves (not doctors, but then they were using someone not one) performed them. A bit of feminism in action.  

The film version has Elizabeth Banks -- as a well-off lawyer's wife who has a medical problem but not bad enough to get a hospital committee to sign off on an abortion -- play a much bigger role. Banks, who can do drama and comedy well, is very good.  

Various other actors have smaller roles, including Sigourney Weaver as a leader of the Jane collective and Kate Mara as Banks' friend and neighbor.  The film ends on the day Roe v. Wade was decided, with the group burning cards of patients, and Weaver's character saying they can close up shop.  

Who are the Janes today in places like Texas? 

The latest book review entry for a companion blog is some romantic comedy books, some of which I myself read or watched.  I noted in a part edited out that they are so many romance books out there (even focusing on comedy) that it's arbitrary to pick around ten.  But, now and then, I find a pleasant one.  

The above -- though it loses its way a bit near the end (a bit of tacked-on excitement pads the book a bit too much) -- is mostly of that caliber.  There is nothing really special about the story of a smart older sister sometime in the later 19th Century (a few markers that suggest a rough time period) in Britain whose marriage of convenience with a scandalous duke with a heart of gold.  But, it was a pleasant enough quick read.  

I just happened to see it in the library (these books are often judged by covers) -- the romance section is near the counter -- and it was a good pick. These things are a matter of chance. I liked another romance last year and when I checked another by the same author, didn't like that one.  My other thought is that they should have a channel with films made out of these things.  Guess the Amish ones pop up on Up TV now and then!

The Fight For Privacy by Danielle Keats Citron

I referenced Danielle Citron's new book in my earlier summary of things going on. She was again a guest on the Strict Scrutiny Podcast to help preview Internet-related cases (oral arguments).  

As noted, the book has a lot of good stuff, but some (well me at least) might not find it good reading straight thru.  On the other hand, again, there is some good stuff there. This includes appendixes on how to improve your and your children's privacy.  Which is a chore!

Citron supports the civil right of intimate privacy.  It is useful to understand these terms. "Civil rights are rights considered fundamental because they enable us to flourish as whole individuals and active members of society." 

Civil rights have legal significance and moral resonance.  She cites Robin West, who noted that they are necessary to "secure the preconditions for a good life."  Civil rights are put in place as a combination of state and federal laws, including constitutional rights.  They are our rights as citizens.

I have on this blog discussed privacy rights for some time. My sentiment is that there was not enough done to provide a foundation for a right to privacy though the material is there.  So, for example, Justice Douglas talked about the importance of privacy in a free society in a dissent involving being forced to listen to radio broadcasts.  

Privacy is something that is necessary for our breed of liberty as much as things like federalism and separation of powers.  The constitutional text expresses such things in various ways even if the word "federalism" itself is not used. To quote: 

With intimate privacy, we can explore unpopular ideas, play with our identities, and figure out our future selves -- the ever-evolving notion of the selves we want to be.

Privacy here is part of what would we label First Amendment liberties.  It would also be part of liberty overall including how we live our lives. The Due Process Clause, for instance, protects the rights of persons. The core interest here is personhood.  We have a general interest to be our own person with all that entails.  And, privacy helps here.  

One thing that comes to mind here is a good bit in the film First Monday In October (a flawed movie, but it has some good lines).  The liberal justice writes an opinion on surveillance:

When God created the world, he did it alone, in private. All by himself.  No monitors, no hidden microphones. He made it the way he wanted it. But what if someone had invaded God's privacy? Would he have put the world together the same way? I doubt it. He would've made it a popular world. And the Garden of Eden would have turned out like Las Vegas or 42nd Street. 

Citron honors a similar philosophy regarding intimate privacy.  It allows us a chance to make mistakes, and to have a space to be "honest and raw."  Life cannot be in a fishbowl, at least to truly enjoy it.  Privacy enables "autonomy, dignity, and companionship."

We are surrounded by threats to our privacy, including many means to collect information.  These include details collected about bodily functions, health conditions, searches, sexual activities, correspondence, body fat/appearance, and menstrual cycles.  We eventually do not expect as much privacy. This is complicated because privacy rights often rest on "expectations" of privacy.  So, this is a matter of creating demand.

This demand is there now to some degree but experience suggests it is not evenly respected.  The book covers various cases where intimate privacy is invaded, especially involving those with less power (women, gays, poor, handicapped, etc.) though an infamous case involved two FBI agents.  

Revenge porn is one example covered.  This was also covered in The Cult of the Constitution, including an argument that we can (and must) regulate the Internet without violating equal liberty.  The Supreme Court cases also become relevant here, including Section 230, which we saw arising in Taking Down Back Page.  The law is meant to protect "good samaritans," websites with some oversight not being treated as providers open to lawsuits.  But, what about websites that intentionally promote harm?  

Richard Nixon argued a case in front of the Supreme Court entitled Time v. Hill, involving the use of a real-life crime to create an exploitation film originally starring Humphrey Bogart. The family sued for invasion of privacy connected to the coverage of the film, coverage that included some erroneous content.  The Supreme Court originally upheld the lawsuit but eventually went the other way.  The dissent said privacy won out here.  

The lines might be complicated in various cases -- such as printing intimate details that have some public interest such as the sex lives of politicians -- but we need to understand there are two things to weigh.  A right to intimate privacy keeps this in mind.  Finally, the book reminds the famous law review article on privacy (Warren/Brandeis) was partially inspired by the concerns of the brother of one of the authors who was homosexual.  

"Why Biden Stabbed D.C. in the Back"

The bill, which passed the GOP-controlled House with 31 Democrats backing it, is likely to pass the Senate with bipartisan support in a vote as early as next week, despite the Democratic majority in the upper chamber. The Democratic Party’s usual support for D.C. home rule drove opposition in the House.

The answer to the above question is not very hard to understand.  It is also not too hard to understand why a legal reporter (a liberal one at that) from D.C. is upset.  Biden can be hung by his Administration's earlier Statement of Administration Policy on the bill, perhaps released expecting it would be blocked in the Senate.  If not, it comes off as a bit much:

While we work towards making Washington, D.C. the 51st state of our Union, Congress should respect the District of Columbia’s autonomy to govern its own local affairs. 

The statement, without going as far as saying he would veto a bill, used this principle to ground his opposition. The statement was not based on agreement on the policy [it covers two bills -- one on allowing noncitizens to vote (which NYC allowed) and the crime bill] but the principle of home rule.  

Statehood is not coming any time soon.  The best you can do now is the honor the principle.  This came up in the daily briefings when Biden's latest position arose.  The press secretary tried to avoid the basic point by pivoting to Biden's position on crime policy overall.  No sale.  The bit about him caring for the public interest here is rather insulting to the degree it implies the city council is not since they decided things another way.

For me, unless the policy at issue is so blatantly wrong that it might warrant overruling it, that settles it.  And, yes, it sets forth a lousy precedent. It invites (with the hope that they will get some support in the 51-49 Senate with Fetterman ailing and one or more other Democrats out too) further efforts by the House Republicans to target home rule.  

It won't happen, but on the merits of statehood, I'm open to a compromise.  Home rule + a voting member in the House. I understand the "but Wyoming" argument and am sympathetic to two senators as a sort of virtual representation of urban voters.  Still, realistically, you make compromises.  And, those two things are the core.  Puerto Rico is different given the population and "state-like" nature warrants full statehood (or two senators).

I don't like the "two wrongs make a right" sentiment.  Also, D.C. is a city, really, not a "state."  I rather not have full state sovereignty rights.  This issue, however, underlines the value of home rule.  In fact, it shows the value of applying the filibuster here.  Overriding local majority rule is something that deserves that usually misguided tool.  

But, as the article cited in the title notes, the crime bill is acceptable on the merits too.  Still, I realize the political realities (call it cynicism) involved here.  The realities, to be clear here, are not just being weighed by Biden.  The "Biden stabbed" narrative annoys me in that regard.  The list of Democrats, yes DEMOCRATS, involved here are:

• The D.C. Mayor
• 31 House Members
• Senator Manchin (who might be enough given Fetterman's ailment)
• Probably other Democratic Senators

So, President Biden, with the 2024 elections and other things to weigh since politics is not just a series of single things, has to determine if a veto is warranted while knowing there is some Democratic support. If "bipartisan" is going to be tossed around if a single Republican senator is involved, this bill is "bipartisan."  And, it brings up the usual "soft on crime" stuff. This is so even if it's bullshit.  "Softer than the D.C. mayor."  

People have a right to be bothered but some of the language to me is a tad exaggerated.  Is it really shocking that he did this?  The guy has a history of supporting tough-on-crime policies.  Again, yes, as the Slate piece notes a careful (or even fairly cursory) understanding of the measure shows it is reasonable and if anything helpful for public safety by cleaning up confused laws that were open to court challenge.  

The Administration has decided to go the path of least resistance in part since the people making the decisions judge that the more simplistic take has such a powerful force in politics.  Also, probably, Biden just doesn't personally care enough about the issue (compare to if Congress was overriding a trans policy or something) to stick his neck out.

The first veto (the method in place to override administrative regulations, now that a legislative veto has been held unconstitutional, needs a simple majority; two Democrats went along with the House Republicans) is likely on another matter:

The president’s decision followed Senate approval on Wednesday of another resolution of disapproval, this one overturning a Biden administration policy on allowing retirement funds to consider climate change and other social factors when picking investments. Republicans denounced it as an example of “woke” policymaking by Democrats, though the rule was drafted to counter a Trump administration policy that banned taking such factors into account.

Anything labeled "woke" is basically not worthy of any respect since it is likely to be partisan drivel.  Anyway, that is a lot easier for the Administration to defend, and it sets up a prime (unburdened by the other matter) example of what the Biden Administration stands for.  

[ETA: I don't know when Republicans locked on to "woke" but it's an example of twisting a perfectly fine word and concept.  The word "woke" brings to mind old-time religious imagery.  AWAKE! and all that.  It also was applied to other things.  The saying "wake up!" or "get a clue." So, someone "woke" was enlightened, including on how things really work.  This upset those who liked the old ways so "woke" took a bad connotation.]

And, for now, yes, to cite the Slate article this includes the fact that D.C. is a "colony" of sorts if one (going by that article) who for a long time was let be when governing on these matters. D.C. statehood is not going to happen.  You have to work within the system.  The SOP was correct.  But, the Administration did not want to take it all the way.  In the end, the title's anger is self-inflicted.  The SOP comes off as bullshit.  

ETA: (3/6) The D.C. Council seems to be trying to find a way that will remove the rules change so that Congress does not have the power to revoke it.  TBD what happens here.  

3/8: After the city council announced it would take it back, adding another excuse not to support it, over 80 senators voted to block the change. 

It was noted that this was maybe the fourth time since the 1970s (or the third in 30 years) that the city council was blocked.  Which is a notable sign that self-rule was generally allowed. 

The Dems during the "debate" mostly let Republicans troll. I saw a reference to only two (including a Maryland senator & Booker) actually defending D.C. on the merits.  The whole thing as noted above is b.s. -- it was sound on policy and should have been left in place as a matter of self-government.  The opposition was full of trolling. Very depressing.  

Odds and Ends: Privacy, Film, SCOTUS

Danielle Citron was on Strict Scrutiny Podcast to help preview the two big Internet cases (which might turn out to be busts). 

She is a privacy advocate and helps to speak out against cyber threats.  Her latest book is The Fight For Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age.  The book is helpful but some might not find it great reading as a book you read straight-thru.  

Prof. Citron is one of the various people who remind us that libertarian-sounding arguments have limitations. I myself do not like limits of freedom of speech while realizing we limit speech in various ways but admit to being somewhat favored.  Do I have to worry about revenge porn?  Not that men also can avoid being harmed in a variety of ways here.  

I still think limits on truly consensual porn should be quite limited indeed. The latest soft porn on Showtime is Naughty Nashville, which involves the music industry.  It amused me that the opening bit had a radio station with two digits ("next on the ten" or something) and the ingenue heroine is talking to an older relative (I suppose) who is having chemo.  I think this is the first time I heard that word mentioned in a porn film.  

I only got a limited feel of the film but doesn't seem too notable.  The aforementioned woman, hoping to make it big in country music, looks better clothed in my view.  She has these huge fake-looking boobs.  The film is from a collection of films that has the same older non-porn actor playing various "straight" roles.  Big tattoos continue to be popular.

The latest slew of DVDs I took out of the library (more to come) is The Secrets We Keep, which I found while looking for someone else.  The lead is very good, no wonder since she's the original (not the American version) actress in the girl/tattoo movies.  

I only saw the opening twenty or so minutes but it sets things up nicely.  The film has a sort of revenge porn plotline, so I really didn't feel like seeing the next hour or so. Nonetheless, again, the lead-in, with a restrained mother of a young boy suddenly cracking when she sees someone she thinks was involved in a WWII-related atrocity was handled well.  

Nifty how I connect this together, huh?  Talking SCOTUS, the student debt cases were heard this week.  The Order List involved them taking a clusterf case out of the 5CA, maybe to fix it (we will see how much). 

And, Jackson had her first opinion, which she handled with a carefully written discussion about money orders and such. The Barrett Four silently didn't join a section using legislative history.  It's a "using this too" section, people.  You can join it without it being a necessary part of the decision.  

The was also a non-ideological split in a banking prosecution case, including Gorsuch (with Jackson) talking about the rule of leniency. As noted here, it seems to be a minor case, even if some appreciated Gorsuch showing his libertarian side.  While not stripping people of abortion rights or whatever, you know.  

===

ETA: I guess I should add a bit on the ERA.  I talked about this before and don't think repeating too much is warranted. 

An appellate court unanimously (the headline might be a tad misleading; seems to rule on fairly narrow grounds) rejected an attempt to get the archivist to declare it ratified.  That was a somewhat silly long shot. 

There was also a Senate hearing on declaring it ratified, in effect, to declare the time limit waived. Nothing special. I also listened online to a local law professor talk about the general issue.  

My question was basically ignored with talk of general needs for sexual equality, angels on pin talk about the power to declare the amendment ratified, and how we don't need it anymore (but "sex" equality will mean trans rights run amuck, etc.).  That is, what does the text (including "abridged" over and above "deny" as cited in the 14th Amendment) cover?  

It sounds like any Senate measure will be open to a filibuster and with the "bipartisan" effort maybe at the moment (if Collins agrees) having two Republicans, the whole thing continues to be moot.  So, my general concern that yes things did change, so the forty-year-old votes for ratification in a rather different time is iffy is you know, academic.  

Sweet On You

At times, the Up TV movie that "premieres" (it might not always be new everywhere) on Sundays at 7 P.M. are enjoyable. They are not really deep. Still, if the writing, pacing, and acting work, it can be a nice watch.

Sweet On You is such a film. The reveal that the guy is in town for such and such reason was a bit forced. The male lead seems a bit forced at times. Still, the whole thing is pleasant enough, and even after the reveal (after over an hour in), things continue pleasantly enough. A few familiar faces and the writer/director is another familiar name to television.

Up TV is a sort of somewhat more "faith-based" Hallmark Channel. It also airs Gilmore Girls and Blue Bloods a lot. GG is not quite what I think about this channel but then it is about a teenager who has her baby! A film like this gently teaches a message without slamming it over our heads. It is a good approach for this film or one with a more bluntly Christian message.

Can We Have Some Empathy Too?

A Christian conservative woman/media personality openly talks about how her pregnancy had some complications. Her doctor tells her that there is some complication. The fetus will not make it.

He recommends (from what I can tell without doing a deep dive and since we only have her account anyway) an abortion procedure to complete things since it would be unhealthy for her not to do so. She is upset but does it, talking about it as part of her overall video logs (vlogs, podcasts, or whatever) about the status of her pregnancy.

Various people are all "A DUGGAR HAD AN ABORTION!!!!!" The general idea is she is a big fat hypocrite. Or, perhaps, it is that only people like her will get "therapeutic" abortions under current laws. I saw people annoyed she did "really" talk about the situation. One person said she called it a "miscarriage" instead of an abortion.

[I recently read about ANOTHER Duggar -- admittedly there are lots -- who has a new book talking about how she chose a somewhat less conservative view of Christianity.] 

The whole thing is depressing. First, it is okay to have some empathy about someone losing a fetus (or whatever she would call it), even if you are upset that their principles are harmful, including helping to further a system that people like her will not be burdened with as much as others. Someone compared her to a Russian soldier as if she is personally invading reproductive clinics.

We know about this because she talked about it. It is asinine to harp on her language. People used similar language in the past, especially depending on the reasons involved. The words here are not merely factual. Will we complain people in abusive religions talk about the abuse but aren't blunt enough?  

It is a form of "miscarriage" from what I can tell. The fetus would not survive. Having an abortion, e.g., because of rape or economic reasons would be a different type of situation. ETA: A few people (not just the "pro-life" brigade) seem to be like me "eh ... you know ... it is not always an abortion, so let's not just assume ..."  Sometimes, we do not know for sure.  Be less cocksure, maybe.

Second, even relatively well-off people are burdened by these policies. Third, it isn't all/nothing. The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a six-week ban (at least for now). These laws will be applied in a haphazard way. 

And, "the cruelty is [not] the entire point." Again, this is an asinine way of looking at how bad things happen. As if it is a matter of pure evil. Are some of that mixed in? Yes.

Finally, yes, I'm glad she decided to talk about it. It shows what she experiences and can help others. And, it helps show how people need reproductive care. We can have discussions about how proper health care involves personal choice. And so on. 

She personally will not frame her story this way. Not listening to her whole story, she is likely (who is?) fully aware of the situation. While she deals with losing a fetus she hoped to become a baby and raise her other kids. But, the truth comes out in stages.

(I bluntly said this is a reply to a sort of "I don't give a shit about her" comment.  Sometimes, it might work to at least try to turn things around and use a person's tone against them. Then again, if the person is fixed in a frame, it won't magically get a light bulb over their head either. As of the latest update, I also got four downvotes -- downvotes are rare, so notable.)  

I think we can have empathy when dealing with people. Finally, of course, some will provide stereotypical accounts about "Christians" (like President Biden?) and where that leads. The Duggars are not exactly run-of-the-mill there either.

I recently wrote a blog on "civic duties v. responsibilities." It is one of my most personal concerns.  One responsibility is caring for others. Another is being informed.  And, part of being informed is to think things through. It is hard to do that.  I don't want to be too patronizing, condescending, or simply full of myself.  It applies to me too at times.    

But, I'm seeing some of that here.  I know online comments are often not quite thought thru at times and all that.  Still, some subjects just are so depressing.  It is a bit soul-crushing to be yelled at for empathy.  

ETA: I have moments like this on various subjects. I think as a general matter that some take is wrong, even granting certain things. We see ever more things with stuff tossed at us online. 

How often do people not know the details?  For instance, the Department of Energy investigated a possible COVID leak in China and people did not know what it specifically did so. It took a few minutes to search for the answer. But, people don't do that.  

Anyway, this is one take that notes that the fetus was dead, and the procedure used for removal, in that case, is not properly called an "abortion."  It is not really hypocritical for even the most extremist anti-abortion person to believe that the removal of a dead fetus is not an abortion!  It is when she denies people in the same situation the right.

"Everyone" -- to cite that second link -- who has an abortion is not in the same position. A person who aborts a fetus with some anomaly or as a result of rape or because of their economic situation should have a legal right to do so.  But, it is not the same situation.  As cited at the link, is it really that hard to understand?  

I understand that she pushed back, including one thing I saw with anti-abortion sentiments about other situations.  She is being called some hypocrite.  Do people think she will have a Paul at Damascus moment? She is not saying everyone but her in these situations is wrong. I do hope she is more sympathetic in various cases where abortion is very necessary.  

I understand the ideological leanings of publications have colored their positions on this subject.  But, it is unfortunate the nuances are not handled better.  We are talking past each other.  If "abortion" is literally referenced as the removal of the fetus, it can be applied.  OTOH, that is often not how people use it. A miscarriage is a "natural abortion" (it naturally expels things out), but again, people do not often see it that way.

This article is a jumble -- doctors "don't use" a word but there is no "debate" over its usage.  She "might not think of it as" (honestly) but she is tarred as at best clueless or at worst a hypocrite.  Others in her position are denied care but with such hazy talk, just what does "similar" mean?  

For instance, it is obvious if an abortion is necessary to prevent an immediate threat to health, it should be allowed. But, that is STILL not the same situation as hers, if the embryo or fetus is still alive (if that word is allowed).  Some very well might be denied care in her condition, including even those with a dead fetus inside.  (She might push back if the doctor cannot say there is some immediate threat to the woman's health.)  

She "claims" since she is using the term as it often is used. It is not a matter of "intent."  The whole this is depressing and again it is common. People talk past each other and cannot even clarify just what the debate at hand is. I think, however, that is fundamental.  We will greatly debate things but we should be able to limit the ground of debate to some degree.  This includes realizing each side has some strong disagreements without simply being hypocrites.  This is so even if they are uninformed.

Are we not all uninformed about many things?  Let's again have some empathy.  Let's have some humility.  

Another Update: I re-reading the joint dissent in the Dobbs case and just this issue arose among the discussion of the many questions the majority leaves open.  

The dissent notes that miscarriage and abortion are often not clearly independent categories. It quotes an article (link from the SCOTUS permanent link page; I had trouble with the one in the opinion) [issue brief] from a health policy group.  It highlights that Duggar is not a hypocrite. 

The article states that "miscarriages and stillbirths refer to the spontaneous death of an embryo or fetus, but not to the elective termination of pregnancy."  A miscarriage includes an embryo or fetus that is not expelled from the womb.  

The term "pregnancy loss" is used here.  The use of drugs or surgery to remove a dead embryo or fetus is not labeled an "abortion."  The brief notes how "surgical methods" used for abortion are also used for "pregnancy loss."  It gets confusing:

However, pregnancy loss is often poorly understood and conflated with induced abortions; for example, terms like “induced miscarriage” have been used to imply intent to end pregnancy, while “spontaneous abortion” is a medical term for a miscarriage. This brief clarifies how pregnancy loss is distinct from abortion, while highlighting the similarities in their management. It also focuses on how abortion policies may impact miscarriage care.

It seems to me, again, that there is talking past each other.  The term "abortion" very well might be used to talk about the removal of an embryo.  Nonetheless, there is a clear difference between the choice of ending the life of an embryo and fetus [which again often is compelled by the circumstances above and beyond the right to abortion generally], and removing (even if literally the fetus is being expelled, aborted) a dead one.

This is a case where terms cannot simply be used as if we are applying objective words like "gold" to apply to an element in nature or "walking" as a verb implying using your feet to move.  It is more akin to something like "killing" to mean the destruction of "life" or "war" to mean a certain type of conflict. Clearly, "abortion" has a mixed meaning here.

So, again, maybe have some empathy, and practice special care when talking about this whole matter. 

#LGM

Mets baseball is back. There is an amusing, well-done commercial on SNY with various members of the team serving as customer hotline reps, answering questions, and taking seat orders. Diaz has a good bit about "closing."

Scherzer started (and pitched two innings) in the Sunday game. The sideline reporter had an opening bit and noted how he "hasn't slowed down." Gary also had some positive opening remarks. Both are sorta full of shit.

Scherzer started strong but then got hurt. He was out of the rotation for a long period and then did not seem to same when he came back. His failure to seal the deal in the final days -- both at the end of the season and in the first round of the playoffs -- was an important part of the Mets running into a brick wall. Why can't you say this? Are we stupid?

One NY Daily News analysis [the paper is one of many that got rid of Dilbert after the "anti-woke" cartoonist really crossed the line] noted that the Yanks and Mets still have issues. Sure enough. 

But, the idea that the new Japanese pitcher has to be better than Bassett (a #3) is dubious. The team won 101 games. The PHILS -- the third-place team -- got to the World Series. Only the first seed gets a bye. So, really, getting a wild card (two options) is basically not a big problem. The Mets don't have that much of a home-field advantage.  They will find a way to stress us out.

There are questions to be answered about the two old pitchers and the new Japanese pitcher, who has so far fit in well with the team and fans as far as I can see. The big issue really is if there will be a bit more offense, especially from DH and some rookies. 

There are various mostly tiresome new rules. This doesn't involve a change of the ghost runner or no DH, which would be actually an improvement. The bigger bases might mildly help safety. Doubt it helps much. It also might help base stealing in some cases.  The whole shift deal is stupid to me. They are mildly banning it. If you want to get around a new strategy, use a new strategy.  

Last year, the Mets were a bit better [until the end] than expected. This season should be a bit more balanced expectations-wise. The team would be a major disappointment (with two wild cards) if they didn't make the postseason. OTOH, with two strong rivals (it will be determined to see if the Nats are AS BAD), unless we have another collapse, the second place won't be as upsetting.

Meanwhile, hopefully, the Orioles can keep up their decent record last year, and don't revert some. It is tough though to see them do much more with the competition. Still, with a second wild card, there is some chance for an upset team.

There is also news of an 83-year-old pitching coach for the Mets bringing an age discrimination suit.  If some behind-the-scenes stuff is nasty, fine, but replacing him (after he helped the pitchers reduce their ERA some) with Jeremy Hefner is not exactly harsh in my opinion.  That was a few years ago.  How long is an eighty-something going to have a full-time position?

Some Quickie Reviews

I saw a nice picture of the singer Orianthi [Orianthi Penny Panagaris] on Twitter.  She tweets from time to time.  I checked out a couple CDs and it turns out that I heard her already.  She sounds like she was on the soundtrack of some film or television program.  I like her voice.

I saw the film The Children's Hour (Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner) based on a play.  It is about the power of a lie (a hint of lesbianism).  The acting is good though the film starts to go in a somewhat melodramatic direction.  

The 1930s version sometimes gets better reviews and one of the stars plays the selfish aunt here.  I checked out These Three, and it was well-acted, especially by the two friends (lesbianism is not covered here) with the guy a bit more frivolous.  It amuses me that the girl telling the lie later played Nancy Drew.  I shut it off before it got to the depressing stuff.  

Bonita Granville (Nancy Drew in a few films) also starred in Hitler's Children, which the library had. First, I also got out Grand Hotel, but it started off dull, so I didn't try watching two hours of it.  I have less patience these days. I have watched a few 1930s films. I recall liking Dinner at Eight years ago.  

The Hitler film was in 1943 and started with a striking bit of true believers.  I lost interest, perhaps given the boring nice guy American professor has the role of the innocent abroad.  Granville plays a German-born American citizen caught up in Nazism.  She is taken away and we are stuck with boring guy realizing 1938/9 German is that bad.  If I stayed with it, it would shift to the Germans.  It does not end well for our heroine.    

I also came upon The Princess of Montpensier, a modern-day French film starring Mélanie Thierry.  I actually found it enjoyable but after about an hour and a half, the story was boring me.  There was a basic simplicity of the plot that didn't warrant so much time though it was all put together and acted rather well. I checked online to see what happened.  A lot of depressing stuff.  

[The film is French so it does have some sex, including a portrayal of her wedding night that -- if slightly away from the action -- a rather crowded cast involved.  Things are not that explicit in the scenes I saw though we see the actress' impressive breasts more than once.]

I will check out the actress in two more films.  I also saw the fifth episode of The Way Home.  It was pretty good -- the mom did not tell her daughter yet that she also went back in time. And, though hinted at, the attempt to try to save the young boy (her sister) that was lost was not covered yet.  One more possible time-related matter also was avoided. 

===

Anyway, while checking out the books of Elaine Pagels (who I saw give a lecture years ago and wrote notes about), I saw that she wrote an introduction to Secrets of Mary Magdalene.  The editors are not historians or anything. And, there are some mumbo jumbo b.s. mixed in.  But, there is a lot of stuff from reliable scholars (including Pagels).

Pagels introduction is a few pages and for some reason basically skips the John scene.  Not sure why.  A few reference the Gnostic Gospels while somewhat skimming over how LATE they are.  

One entry makes up for it by overdoing it -- the Gospel of Mary being written "over two hundred years after her death" is dating it rather late (and her death a tad early).  And, one person for some reason writes with an assurance that Jesus for years -- again curiously dating it early [around 26] -- lived in Capernaum.  

The book is over three hundred pages and I still do not get a full sense of her all the same.  One thing that is not really covered is Mary as a woman of her era and region.  We have some colored pictures of art that portray her over the years. There is but one regional representation that (if in a somewhat primitive form) shows her something like she would have looked. The art is as expected modeled after European women.

I realize that the little we know of Mary leads to a lot of reactions to an understanding of her that puts on her stuff not her own.  But, such happens regularly in the Bible.  The Book of Daniel speaks of events written hundreds of years before it was likely written.  The "books of Moses" portrays events of a different age in ways that mix in anachronisms that only experts are likely to pick up. But, they are surely there.  

The theology of John (written sixty or so years after Jesus died at the very least) is in various ways as loyal to his actual teachings as gnostic material.  Which expressed some stuff that we can get a taste of already in the New Testament.  There is talk of "powers" and such in there.  And, the Gospel of Thomas might have been finished sometime in the second century but has material probably earlier.  And, anyway, it isn't the only NT book that was completed in the second century.  

So, it is not really too different in some ways that gnostic materials and even later Mary material change "actual history."  Still, a book of this sort should have a bit more on the actual Mary.  If we are going to be upset that the desire for a complete story (plus usual "sex sells" etc.) resulted in a composite Mary that made her into a former prostitute [and even the person she is combined with is deemed a "sinner" -- we don't know if she is actually a whore], we should try to get a sense of the real Mary.

There is a way to do that in some sense.  An essay on how a somewhat successful (though what Luke meant by saying she and other women helped pay Jesus' way is far from clear) woman of that day lived would have been nice.  I was annoyed that Bart Ehrman's book that covers Peter, Paul, and Mary [Magdalene] did not go more into the exorcism, which is a real practice, with or without the presence of actual demons. 

Anyway, the book has enough material to make it not upsetting to me that I bought it for around $5 on eBay.  

SCOTUS Opinions

[I originally posted a form of this the day the opinions were released but will provide this updated version as a new version.  Since then, SCOTUS has announced another opinion day.  They are slowly catching up after a slow start.]

Florida had a habit of executing a few people a year after it became the first state to involuntarily execute someone (Gary Gilmore "volunteered") after the country started to do again after the mid-1970s.  The last two were executed in 2019, both serial killers.  That would be #98 and 99.

Donald Dillbeck is not a serial killer but seems on some level the sort of person the death penalty is there to handle.  He murdered a police officer (when he was 15) and was given life in prison.  Today, Dillbeck would have to be at some point at least offered a chance of parole unless deemed particularly horrible.  

Moot point.  He escaped one day and murdered a woman.  On some level, there is a "what? oh come on!" flavor to his crime:

Dillbeck, now 59, was initially sentenced to life in prison in the 1979 shooting death of Lee County sheriff’s Deputy Dwight Lynn Hall when Dillbeck was 15. But in 1990, he walked away from a catering function in Quincy where he and other inmates were working.

Dillbeck went to Tallahassee, got a knife and tried to carjack a vehicle, according to court documents. Faye Vann, who was sitting in the car, resisted and was fatally stabbed, with Dillbeck then arrested after crashing the car. He was convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, armed robbery and armed burglary, Department of Corrections records show.

And, he was cited as an example of criminal negligence of a sort akin to the whole Willie Horton affair.  It's somewhat unclear how you can be lax enough to let a person in prison for life because he killed a police officer to escape.  I am all for allowing people in prison some discretion to do things.  But, you have to keep an eye on such people.  These days, I would hope, there would be some way to put a monitoring device on them or something. 

(A news bit over the weekend informed us that Jimmy Carter -- 98 -- is going into hospice care. So, we might not have much more time with him in this world. Well, he had over forty years of good work since he was POTUS.  He had a great run.  And, darn, Mary Price ... that's some story.)

I do not know what executing Donald Dillbeck thirty years later will do as a matter of public welfare.  I again cite Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross to remind us that executing after a long term on death row is constitutionally problematic.  His lawyers also cited mental incapacity and the fact that his death sentence is the result of a non-animous jury finding.  

He murdered someone during a botched escape after around ten years in prison.  He should not have had the chance to escape in the first place. A crime when he was 15 should not have meant life imprisonment so even in that sense the death penalty should not have been the only option. And, the vote for execution was 8-4, even with those facts. 

And,  if his mental status (a bad childhood is also cited) is a problem, that too might be added.  An execution of Dillbeck is not the level of travesty of some executions.  I would still note his execution -- especially after thirty years -- seems much more pointless than the execution of the two serial killers before him.  

Public safety and justice as a whole does not benefit too much from executing him. Like the recent execution of someone who murdered a police officer after a reckless chase, there are other things I would address than doing that.  One conservative legal mind (who granted the result was right in the Arizona case) argued a life would be saved if he was executed for his first murder quickly.  So, we are going to execute all murderers, including those fifteen years old when they murder?  

At any rate, the Supreme Court rejected his final appeal without comment.  As a rule, I rather they make the final call 24-48 hours before the scheduled execution.  The same-day death watch is a morbid and bad policy.  More than once, in fact, the final decision made it impossible to carry out the execution!  Maybe, that seems okay for someone against the death penalty, but I think it's not a good way to run a railroad.  

He was executed.  Coverage included the "consciousness tests" they use to make sure the person is really finished.  I'll repeat my previous comment that I'm impressed with some of the local coverage of executions in particular.  

He did use his last words to badmouth Gov. DeSantis. Okay.  A few liked that, but you know, the guy is a murderer of two people.  I think there is something to going out swinging, but I'll take my digs (with or without profanities) from other people.

The 8-4 jury thing is convenient too since DeSantis wants to make it easier to sentence people to death.  The opportunity to promote one of his "tough on crime" proposals seems mighty convenient here, though just how much its serendipity and the execution purposely being chosen for that reason is unclear.  Given Ring v. Arizona, that might be tricky though if the jury isn't deciding "facts" but merely sentencing, it might work.  

The Supreme Court has held unanimous (states are still allowed to have juries of less than twelve but at least six) juries are constitutionally necessary.  That was the practice generally, one state and Puerto Rico didn't have it when SCOTUS ruled upon it too long ago, anyhow.  

I would say even granting maybe you can allow someone dissenting, 8-4 is rather divided, especially for the death penalty.  

==

Three opinions were announced (wrongly not live-streamed) and released on Wednesday.  

Leah Litman in the past flagged the criminal case out of Arizona as an injustice (in a capital case) that had to be fixed.  It was by a bare 5-4 majority, Sotomayor vs. Barrett.  The dissent drew a line in the sand, citing cases back to 1792 to deem this as an egregious ("assertion is jarring") interference with state courts.  

She later expanded it for a Slate article.  The opening bit on how liberals should be relieved about the opinions handed down annoyed me.  We had two bland opinions, which is not novel especially as part of the first set released, and then a 5-4 opinion in a case that is apparently blatantly clear.  

Some are shocked Roberts and Kavanaugh went along, as if either is akin to Alito and loathe ever to rule for a criminal defendant.  It is a simplistic view of the current situation. And, I didn't think even this ruling was "unexpected."  SCOTUS still now and then finds some extreme criminal injustice and this is one such case.

A dispute over an application of a rule about overtime pay also had some spleen, this time from Kagan for 6-3 Court. Gorsuch would have "DIGGED" but Kavanaugh (with Alito) dissented on the merits.  Or, in Kagan's words "recognizing that the argument may be forfeited, but opining on it anyway." She also did her "baby hit me one more time" bit: "And if all that leaves the tiniest doubt—well, still we are not done."  

I do not claim to know the right path here, but it's hard not to smile when Kagan (or anyone really) has her claws out for Kavanaugh.  Yes, the little angel on my shoulder disfavors heated rhetoric and snark in court opinions. I'm not sure if the long footnote with that dig (and others, like "That is a non-sequitur to end all non-sequiturs") was necessary.  But, yeah, the liberals need something to vent their frustrations.  

She showed a bit of snark against the general claim and Gorsuch -- though she was more playful with him -- but yeah, the level of snark here comes off a tad bit pointed.

The third case was a unanimous one settling a bankruptcy rule. Barrett has her second opinion of a small sample size this term with Sotomayor (with Jackson) adding a short (and low temp) concurring statement noting its limited reach.  The decision includes some of the facts, involving some perils of house repair that remind me a bit of a Cary Grant movie. 

Trubek Article Citation

"This made my whole day! Thank you! I wrote this piece on a cross-country flight. It remains one of the best writing experiences I've ever had! The words and argument literally flowed out of my fingertips. Not the usually experience of panicked fits and starts." 

Well, you made my day too, Prof. Murray. I referenced the article (which is about Griswold) myself sometime a while back, and she must have done some sort of name/subject search since she found it. And, thanked me. This time I replied to someone who cited it on Twitter. Turns out the article is special to her. Well, I do try to do something nice for people from to time.

Trubek v. Ullman impressed me as a road not taken. Justice White cited it in his Griswold concurrence as an example of the law burdening a marrying couple's "considerations of family planning." The Trubeks were a young couple who felt it inappropriate at that time to have a child but that normal sexual relations were an important part of marriage. Birth control would allow both, husband and wife, to choose a professional path fitting their own moral principles.

[The article cites an op-ed the wife wrote fifty years later, which I linked in the thread too.]

Griswold is a sort of artificial case with named plaintiffs involved in a birth control clinic. Their arrest burdened married couples. But, like the article notes, we do not get a sense of any married couples involved. 

The set of cases involved under the overall Poe v. Ullman rubric did have married couples. Justice Douglas references this in his dissent. Trubek provides the open-ended reach here, helping to show the full potential of a "right to marry" and make choices involving children.

And, yes, "privacy and equality could co-exist." That was a lesson for Justice Kennedy, flawed as he might have been. He repeatedly linked due process (liberty) and equal protection concerns. The subject is complex. It is why I have for so long -- if more like thirty-five years -- been so interested in the complexity of abortion and related subjects.

I did know about the chapter/book also recommended to me. I actually went to an event where the three editors talked about it. I read more than one book in that constitutional stories series. The book is just a bit pricy. I can get it through someone I know so guess it's time -- eventually -- to read it. 

Odds and Ends

The author JK Rowling has had her reputation downgraded after some anti-trans remarks.  But, this does not erase her skills as a writer.  This still included me being able to read more than one of her Cormoran Strike mysteries, especially since we are talking a lot of pages. Too many, but again, interesting enough for me to keep reading.  Not a bad recommendation.

[I checked and I don't recall reading the fourth book.  Did I? I might have. The third book ends on another nice note -- the books have a lot of depressing stuff but some nice moments showing the bond between the two leads -- at Robin's wedding.]

I stopped at three, partially because of her comments, partially since I didn't like what she did with the Robin character, and partially since the books got even LONGER.  A mystery book nearly 1000 pages long is ridiculous.  I did happen to see the television version of the fifth novel while flipping thru the channels.  I have watched the episodes available.  Fairly enjoyable. 

Last weekend, I also finished up on the first four episodes of The Way Home, a new Hallmark Channel series with a time travel (back to 1999) subplot.  I liked the episodes, including a chance for three generations of women (Andie McDowell plays the grandmother and the mother also has been in a few things) as well as a guy friend of the mother (the father is seen less) to have some good moments. 

I'm wary about what will happen now with both the mother and daughter traveling back thru time.  There is a mystery about a disappearing little boy.  How will time travel play there?  We already have a hint about "rules" such as the time-traveling portal sending her back to different times, spaced out, for whatever reason.  More rules to come? 

John Oliver is back (10th season) and talked about the potential of psychedelic drugs in therapy.  I also saw Orchid Muse in the library.  I did not find it interesting enough to read thru, but there were some interesting tidbits (Raymond Burr was gay, huh?) and some nice pictures.  How about this of an Orchid Cabinet?

I was going to wait to give blood but kept on getting requests, there being another blood shortage.  I "universal donor" (O-) blood too.  They got me on a tease: some "special" gift if I went today.  We were not told what it was.  It turned out to be a t-shirt, which is fine since I wanted another t-shirt with more than one of mine starting to get worn out.  There were also hats and some third item.  Plus, free juice, snacks, and helping others. 

SCOTUS Order List

The justices are back in session.  

As expected, the order list was low drama.  Among the cases not taken is the one covered in the now famous Onion brief cited here, which also discusses the two Internet-related cases covered in the oral arguments this week.  Gorsuch felt under the weather, so took part from home on Monday.  

Justice Jackson (with Sotomayor) had a dissent from cert. Justice Jackson is beginning to have a style with these brief, crisp criminal justice-themed dissents:

Petitioner Quartavious Davis alleged, and the Eleventh Circuit did not dispute, that he satisfied the first prong of the Strickland ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard because his attorney failed to initiate plea negotiations with the Government.

I wish one of them had more to say before silently going along in nearly all of the recent executions that reached the Supreme Court since last fall.  

Jackson also implied on the first day of the Internet-related oral arguments (it went nearly three hours, which is too long for something scheduled for something like a third of that)  that she was more open than some others to allow for more room to litigate.  Some find that troubling. 

I am fairly libertarian-minded regarding the Internet. Nonetheless, there might be some middle ground open here.  

SCOTUS and Other Legal Stuff

Book: I saw the author of From Back Alley to the Border: Criminal Abortion in California on C-SPAN give a lecture (she is a teacher of history) on abortion. It was a basic survey and did not really tell me much new that I did not know.  I know more about abortion history than many people do. 

This book (in its 200 pages of core material) has some of that.  It includes A LOT of history (from the road to criminalization and snapshots of various eras covered before going into some specific stories).  It might try to do a bit too much there though it's a helpful summary.  The best part of the book is the stories of the specific subject of the title, including an abortion syndicate attempted in the 1930s. The author is firmly pro-choice.

New York Chief Judge:  State Republican senators decided to open a legal case to try to claim that it violated the state constitution not to have a floor vote.  So, the Democrats had one, and LaSalle (who for some reason was there to see himself lose) lost big.  One of his few Democratic supporters didn't even show up.  Okay.  Can we move on now?  

The claim was stupid but the vote saved time. In some other environment, maybe, LaSalle could have won with bipartisan support.  But, that isn't where we are now.  This is especially the case after the 2022 elections went badly in various respects (at least on the federal level) for Democrats.  

I do not know why Gov. Hochul could not accept -- even if the nomination itself can be defended on some level -- the political reality here.  

One Less Biden Lawsuit (For Now): The Supreme Court canceled the March 1 oral argument in Arizona v. Mayorkas, involving the Title 42 immigration policy.  The Biden Administration recently told the justices that the case may become moot on May 11 because the policy will expire when the COVID emergency formally ends.

A lot of inside baseball here.  First, Gorsuch dissented from taking this case, and Jackson joined his dissent.  (I noted at the time that I wasn't sure how strong his argument was, but it's notable even he didn't want to decide this.)  Second, when the public information office posted a media advisory (expecting higher than normal coverage) [ETA: which is later removed], there was this tidbit: 

PIO will send an email confirming day passes for March 1 by close of business on Thursday, February 16.

(Checks calendar. Wait.  Darn, 2023 is almost over!)  So, the timing of the cancellation is somewhat logical.  We are not actually told why it was done.  It was not even done via an order on the Order Page.  If you follow the case link, you can follow links to the docket page, where the notice is posted. This bit of timing (which at least one Supreme Court reporter suggested might not mean the case is over) is therefore a bit low-key.  

The action was a bit unexpected all the same.  We can see there the other stuff posted around it, including a brief posted after the announcement. 

Other Stuff: The Supreme Court is back from their little break, having a Friday conference. There is some stuff on the plate for next week, including more scheduled execution (this time out of Florida).  One bit of stuff in the news is supposed to be plans to honor Thomas in Georgia.  Charming.  

Next Week: Let's not forget that Monday is a holiday. (The White Plains Library [NY] was closed for Lincoln's Birthday, but the NYPL was open.).  President Taft was the only person who was both on the Supreme Court and also a president. Various presidents argued in front of the Supreme Court, both before and after [never during!] their terms.  

As I expected might happen sooner than later, there is also a notice on the website that they may (read that as "probably will") announce one or more opinions on Wednesday.  There is also an oral argument scheduled so that will be later than usual while the opinion is read from the bench.  

This time, one would think, they all will be there (unlike the first announcement this term, which was not only Barrett's first but the first since they ended up doing so for COVID).  

The sensible approach would be to have audio for both the announcement and the oral argument.  They do not want to do that so will only provide audio for the second.  

Pence Is An Immoral Scumbag

I'm so fucking tired of this.

An entry on civic duties vs. responsibility on another blog is forthcoming. The blog focuses on historical topics though has some opinions. 

But, oh, I can take that to a certain level. One of the travesties of our times is the lack of civic responsibility by many in government. This leads to despair, cynicism, and other bad stuff.

This is the sort of thing involved with Pence raising legislative privilege (sic), the lastest Trump enabling asshole using such things to obstruct justice. The claim is just a tad credible.  For instance, a lower court opinion left it open. But, come on.  The text says "senator."  Can the Chief Justice now claim privilege during an impeachment trial?  

But, on some level, it doesn't fucking matter. He doesn't HAVE to claim it. In fact, his aides already testified to the 1/6 Committee. When there is Speech and Debate privilege, legislative aides are covered too. So, that is just one more level of it.  This is a time-delaying dodge, probably somehow motivated by him running for POTUS and public speaking fees and such.

A spouse can waive privilege. They aren't forced if let's say their spouse raped someone, to not testify. They actually have a moral duty to do so.  Here, Pence -- who wrote a book about and flaunts his moral rectitude, including as a public servant (he swore to uphold the Constitution, swearing means to God, right?)  -- is violating his civic responsibilities.

We saw it repeatedly during both impeachment trials. People refused to agree to be called as a witness (or would have if pressed).  It's down the memory hole, as is basically both impeachments themselves.  Some liberals sneered at the impeachments as wastes of time.  They are enabling the cheapening of the importance of such things, including refusing to help.  Get behind me, Satan! 

I'm reading one of Elaine Pagels' books on Satan (not the Adam and Eve one; not sure if I actually read this one) and reading the chapter on the Romans' view of religion and philosophy. This includes some arguing we should have an evenhanded acceptance of our fate. And, on some level, this is a useful approach.  But, sometimes, I just have to scream a bit.

We -- long after it became clear he was safe -- just got an official note that no federal charges were going to be placed on Rep. Matt Gaetz for his use of funds for underage sex or whatever.  The greater thing there is that guy continues to be in Congress and will be over more credible ones. 

Anyway, I digress a bit.  There has to be a certain level of expectation of civic responsibility in this country. Like those who toss around "Christian" and "religion" to me a certain thing, we should not belittle such terms or merely cynically treat them as bad or worthless. They have important value. And, it disgusts me that they are treated in this way.

===

I will just note as a bit of a palate cleanser, that Senator John Fetterman (or his office) has announced that he is getting treatment for clinical depression.  This includes some time in a hospital for treatment.

Fetterman is dealing with the effects of a stroke and the stresses of becoming a U.S. senator.  Ideally, it very well might have been a good idea for someone else to have stepped into that role when the news came out.  

But, we did not have the freedom really to risk it with the Senate on the line and the alternative a con artist.  Also, I suppose, there is a good chance that Fetterman was and is able to be a senator.  And, it is a good reminder that many others with a disability are able to thrive.  

A relative has long dealt with depression, so this is one of those things that has a special personal reach for me. But, that tends to be a lot of things. 

From Friendship To Lust

This blog is generally filled with politics, legal news, and "straight" reviews of television and film. But, yes, there are a few posts about "adult films." Not too surprisingly, a lot of the limited hits are to these entries.

I think late nite films on cable -- I do not count fully explicit channels like Playboy and such here -- are slack these days.  There is a ton of shows, on a ton of platforms.  But, the Life on Top type show? Not so much from what I can see on HBO, Showtime, and so on.  Am I missing something? 

Soft porn films also seem of lesser quality.  No more Brandin Rackley-type spoofs like the quality of The Devil Wears Nada.  The Showtime "adult" collection includes a series (including Erotic Couture) of films with familiar faces -- an older actor who fills in speaker roles repeatedly pops up -- of cheap-looking products.  

In comparison, Erotic Eats -- which I talked about some months back -- is almost high quality. I find the beginning amusing -- the caterer has a "dramatic moment" when she is anguished to still be having sex dreams (including the opening scene) of her ex.  

Ditto Hot Honeymoon Surprise, a porn title obviously.  That involves a big-boobed woman with lots of makeup being stood up (after the guy makes sure to have one more "go at it") and meeting up with a newlywed couple (the woman is a bit less fake looking) at a resort.  The guy is a familiar face.  The hotel clerk -- a bit older these days -- might be familiar to some.  

Okay, so the title film, with the woman star pictured.  I can do with the hair not being so long.  She is cute enough, including teasing her friend early on by standing around nude in the bathroom.  The film cut also has her have basically the shortest shower you'd ever seen (she pops in and out of the shower).  The heavily tattooed neighbor [not a fan of heavy tattoos, but seems to be a major thing these days in porn] also looks familiar.  

Nothing too interesting overall though you see a quick bit of pubic hair in that bathroom scene (that honeymoon film also has a bit of the guy's butt, which also seems not to be a big thing in these things).  The film overall is fairly dull -- boring looking guy and a woman friend are new in town, go to a party, and we see the tattooed woman have sex with a guy (tattoo/creepy looking) and the woman.  The guy has sex with a fellow acting student (okay).  And, in the end, the friends ... well there is lust and stuff.  

I think the honeymoon film is sort of more interesting.  The level of the artificiality of the woman (including in her lace underwear) is amusing and there are actually tiny bits of plot that carry things along okay.  Check out that woman.  We are not talking full Jazy Berlin, but lol.

(The picture doesn't quite do her justice. Recognize the guy?)

But, we need better soft porn.  Let me not even get into Pornhub, which is rather boring.  As an NYT article argues, "sex is good," and so can porn. 

(There is also an open letter to NYT criticizing their trans coverage. This has led to the usual "stop reading them"! comments. Where do people get the level of the content found there?  I doubt all of the places do not have their own issues on some level.)  

Films and Stuff

Not having a lot of luck with some books that I reserved but found The Once and Future Sex which discusses women during the Middle Ages pretty good. The last (small) chapter basically tosses in some facts to suggest things aren't great now either. Fine, but hey, you are a medieval expert, and a few selected studies on recent times are somewhat lacking.  

I probably will have a longer review in the separate book review website I contribute to (Good Arguments review has been added).  She also co-hosts a popular podcast (over 100 episodes), one of the myriads of podcasts out there. I listened to their podcast on The Knight's Tale, which they very much enjoyed (realizing it is a bit of a goof).  I like when people can enjoy, especially when they have some skills to "deep dive," such films.  

I also enjoyed some films and stuff on television. Unexpected is one of a slew of films out there that often are likely only to be found on demand, which is how I found this one.  Anna Camp, who is in Pitch Perfect among other things, is very good.  But, others are as well.  It's a quirky film about a couple with a lot of issues.  

Inez & Doug & Kira was the independent option (joined with a classic and a short film) on PBS on Saturday.  A couple has to deal with the suicide of someone both have a complicated relationship with (sister, sponsor, former lover). I did not see the whole thing but it is well-acted, written, and directed (good use of flashbacks and quiet scenes).  

A film that deserves caps -- KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE -- was the Svengoolie option. Svengoolie has been stretched to two and a half hours, which seems a bit too long, but then many of these horror host shows have a lot of commercials and filler.  This is a silly movie that is amusingly cheesy. I fast-forwarded some since I was not in the mood to see it in all its glory.  Either way, it was a fun entry.    

The Way Home is a new-ish Hallmark series about three generations (Andie MacDowell again pops up on Hallmark as the grandmother and looks quite fine in scenes that take place twenty years earlier) that involves time travel. A family member wanted to see it and they reaired the first four episodes last night.  I caught the first and parts of the second and fourth episodes.  

Overall, it is well-acted and written, with something for teens and adults.  Not sure if I would want to see the whole thing and not sure how the mother finding out about the time traveling will work.  But, I liked what I saw as a whole (was starting to find the teen family drama a bit boring in the fourth).  Always nice to hear Andie MacDowell's accent. 

===

And, of course, the big event on television was the Super Bowl. I did not watch it though I caught the very end.  I was traveling during the middle of the game and one prediction ticker had the Eagles' win chances around halftime being close to 70%.  

I think it is a bit silly to do that when they were only ahead by a TD though the ten points at halftime were a bit more notable. Still, KC scores after halftime and it's a three-point game. Come on.  Anyway, after the Jags blew a chance (including against a backup QB), the stud boy on a bad ankle did his thing again helped by the oatmeal guy.  

Another close win, finished off by an over five-minute job to basically run out the clock.  For the second game in a row, a late penalty helped ice the game, this time a hold denying the Eagles a chance with plenty of time to respond.  We will see both teams again in the postseason and probably (surely Kansas City) in the Super Bowl again.  One of these games playing for that deciding FG will blow up on them with a miss.  Time for baseball.

Some Odds and Ends

It is still early, even after a handful of episodes, to determine the reboot of Night Court is a misfire. I noted it and will again that the original took years to really get into a groove, the "standard cast" not there the first couple of years.  Still, have not found the show that good so far though overall it is relatively non-painful.  On some level, that's what you ask for at times.  

Talking about old shows that had a reboot, this time a few years back now on another platform, I noticed one of the retro stations airs Mad About You.  This would be around midnight when you can see Friends on three channels (local Channel 11 & for some reason I have East/West feeds of Nickelodeon).  This is a show that I think has three categories of episodes: charming, okay, and a bit cringe.  The naming of their child "MABEL" (look it up!) has a bit of each.  

[T]he only nation in the world built on an idea. The only one. Other nations are defined by geography [and] ethnicity, but we're the only nation based on an idea. That all of us, every one of us, is created equal in the image of God. 

While listening to the SOTU -- which at first I wasn't going to do, but then (though I missed the beginning) I did anyway and it had some charm -- the "nation based on an idea" trope threw me.  

I doubted that was true. Hey, what about Vatican City!  Michael Dorf, the person at that blog that I usually generally agree with [Sherry Colb was sorta me too but not quite so] does a good job attacking the wider claim.  We have our myths and sometimes it is good to examine them.

===

The Supreme Court ethics story clearly has legs with more reporting about it, now a deep dive of sorts over at the Washington Post.  The headline is that they have (not always only behind the scenes though there are clear signs the article has some sources inside) discussed a code of conduct for years now, but cannot agree upon a solution.  Ah to be a fly on the wall.

One fascinating bit of history cited -- I don't recall this before but I would think this isn't the first time we saw it -- is a recusal statement signed in 1993 by seven justices.  Justice Blackmun, whose daughter was a lawyer at the time, clearly came within its terms. Nonetheless, he along with Souter (don't know about close family members on that front) did not. 

The article does not say why.  Souter? I can see.  Blackmun was a bit of a dissenter too (he wasn't a big fan in 1980 to stop saying "Mr. Justice"), but still. Hmm.  I love this sort of thing -- you have a book or article that covers ground that some are familiar with, but there is that extra bit of detail, like the extra material in a "best of" CD/tape, that gives you more.  

===

It is partially me, maybe it's a lot me, but there seems to be a somewhat dull feel about things these days.  Time goes by and what new things happen? I'm ready for something really big to happen. We did have Republicans gain control of the House, but there seems to likely be a lot of stupid without much significant happening. Of course, that is also a loss of opportunity.

And, we are moving toward mid-February and baseball season. Elsewhere, I asked "is it 2024" yet, but before you know it, well it won't be too much of a joke. We already are having people announce they are running in 2024, and multiple Republicans announced in some form as presidential candidates.  

We are chugging along holiday-wise too, moving toward Valentine's Day, past Groundhog Day and now it's almost time for Lincoln's Birthday.  Charles Darwin also gets a day too, since he was by chance born the exact same day.  His birthday is in part a celebration of reason.  

John Balentine Execution (and More on SOTU)

This execution was on hold by a lower court earlier but a divided state appeals court allowed it to move forward. The Supreme Court rejected a final appeal, as usual, without comment. It, as usual, warranted some.

In the court below, Mr. Balentine raised claims that a prospective juror, who later became the jury foreman, hid evidence of his racial bias and lied about his background during jury selection in order to become a member of the jury.

The case -- around twenty-five years ago [again, too long, rising independent constitutional issues though the Supreme Court never accepted that claim; I refer again to Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip et. al.].  There are no doubts of innocence here.  There is some argument that mitigating evidence was not appropriately introduced and factored in.  

The core claim is that racism, including involving the foreman who played a significant role in the jury choosing death -- corrupted the process.  This was aggravated by the nature of the crime.  John Balentine killed a teen (and two others that seem basically to have been in the wrong place) with a violent streak that was strongly against his interracial relationship with the teen's sister.  John is black.  The sister is white.   

[One article speaks of a "feud" and that at the time of the killings that he was the woman's "former boyfriend."  It says he spoke of "threats" but again doesn't seem like there was a claim it was justifiable.] 

The coverage I see does not seem to suggest John Balentine was at enough risk to his life to excuse the three murders.  But, there seems to be a good case to be made that racism infected the process. His lawyers also argue a pending SCOTUS case is enough like this one to hold things in place until it is decided.  Since the Supreme Court said NOTHING (not just those darn conservatives either), it is hard for me to judge how strong that claim is.

The execution yesterday seems to reasonably be the result of someone cruelly murdering a mother and three children. This one is a bit hazier and is not merely a matter of gratuitous cruelty.  The person was convicted and the murder of three teenagers warrants a long prison sentence. He has been in prison for over twenty years. He can be there longer. 

There is still the concern for possibly outdated execution drugs that might have caused problems in at least one recent execution.  My issue is the racism and due process problems.  

Texas executed him.

==

I referenced yesterday that Prof. Kate Shaw [Chris Hayes' wife] wrote an op-ed hoping that President Biden would speak about the courts in his state of the union.  He started with a joke request to the Chief Justice and referenced Roe v. Wade being overruled, but she did not get her wish.  

The SOTU as a whole was very good, even if it was not really a "state of the union" in the sense Art. II quite suggests. It was domestically focused and seemed a lot like a celebratory trot, mixed with perhaps his re-election slogan involving completing the job. He also overall schooled Republicans, who came off badly, especially on Social Security.  

As someone said on Twitter, it was not really politically useful to bring up the courts, especially since the chance of something being done is small. But, it's still troubling on some level, as was his rather limited reference to abortion and trans (the hate of the moment) rights. Gay USA this week overall liked the speech.  

He also should have said more about immigration and the border, which has been a lingering problem for years.  Republicans actually have some incentive to do something about it, maybe even possibly agreeing to a sane policy.  Maybe.  A courts ethics law and maybe more too is possible too. 

And, the House Speaker had to deal with unruly members booing and all, but Republicans had themselves to blame for choosing Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders for the response.  The general response?  Horrible both in content and delivery.  There are better spokespersons, though I guess this troll "anti-woke" sentiment is what they are these days. Failed party.