Tonight's Conversation

I went out to eat at Chili's with my Dad, grandparents, and brother (who's in town from Alabama until tomorrow). The way back, this was overheard in the car:

Rick: Did you like the tilapia, Grandma and Grandpa?
Grandma: I liked it a lot, except mine didn't have rice. Grandpa's had rice, didn't it, Chuck?
Grandpa: Yep.
Grandma: But Rick, you don't have to have rice. You could've gotten corn if you wanted.
Grandpa: We're going to Meijer tomorrow, we can pick up some corn then.

My grandparents are hilarious, especially when they aren't even trying.

America's Historian

He has one of the best voices in America. Those who enjoy history have certainly read one, if not more, of his books. He's an all-around good guy.

You may know him as the narrator on Ken Burns' Civil War. You may know him as the big name on the front of Truman and 1776 and Mornings on Horseback. You may know him as that old guy who helped produce the miniseries John Adams.

He, of course, is David McCullough. And Peggy Noonan, a great writer herself, has an excellent piece on the meaning of the American Revolution and on Mr. McCullough. It's worth the read.

Thought for the Day...On Substantive Due Process

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the States. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions. Yet I can think of no narrower reason that seems to me to justify the present and the earlier decisions to which I have referred. Of course the words due process of law, if taken in their literal meaning, have no application to this case; and while it is too late to deny that they have been given a much more extended and artificial signification, still we ought to remember the great caution shown by the Constitution in limiting the power of the States, and should be slow to construe the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment as committing to the Court, with no guide but the Court's own discretion, the validity of whatever laws the States may pass.

- Baldwin v. Missouri, 281 U.S. 586, 595 (1930) (Holmes, J. dissenting)

Take a butcher's at this!

I recently discovered one of the coolest linguistic phenomena ever. Slang, of course, is always interesting and sometimes annoying. Whether things are guay ('cool' in Spain) or tu t'en fiches ('you don't give a crap' in French), all languages have interesting idiomatic ways of expressing ideas. Some are vulgar, some are witty. The British Cockney accent is incredible. It is known as 'rhyming slang.'

What?

Those speaking Cockney will take a word that rhymes with the intended word, and that which rhymes is often a phrase (ex. instead of dollar, they say Oxford scholar). A Cockney, however, will drop the last word, leaving the first, unrhyming word to replace the original one (using our example, "Do you have a dollar" becomes "Do you have an Oxford?").

Some other examples:

• believe becomes Adam and Eve ("Would you Adam and Eve it?")
• stairs becomes apples and pears, leaving apples ("Would you go up the apples and grab my suit?")
• eyes becomes mince pies, leaving minces ("You have beautiful minces, ma'am.")
• look becomes butcher's hook, leaving butcher's ("Let's have a butcher's at this.")

All in all, it's a remarkable system. here are more examples.

Have You Ever Wondered How to Read Sumerian?

Yeah, well...neither have I. But, Ancient Scripts.com is an amazing website, explaining the alphabets and phonetic systems of multiple, unique, and varied living and dead languages, including Cherokee, Aztec, Ethiopic, and Gothic. It's great for procrastinating--er--learning.

I Kind of Agree with Dahlia Lithwick (for once)

Dahlia Lithwick, in her own vaguely insulting, stab-in-the-back sort of way, tells liberals that they should stop calling Clarence Thomas stupid, since he's not. She also says that therefore, since he's not stupid, Sotomayor isn't either. I'm not sure that follows (though I'm also not doubting Sotomayor's intelligence). The statement is simply illogical, though from a woman who usually disheartens me both in her mean, ad hominem commentary about conservatives and her constant Obama-slobbering, it's a breath of fresh air.

Does Sotomayor Believe in Objectivity?

The wagons are beginning to circle around Sonia Sotomayor, and it looks like the weapons, too, have been chosen. Those will be the case Ricci v. DeStefano, currently before the Supreme Court, and Judge Sotomayor's statement about how she hoped a Latino female would be able to come to a wiser judgment than a white male.

Pundits have been all over about it, from left, from right, from speechwriters, and from Court-watchers. What hasn't so much been discussed is the very interesting, and very important issue that her statement raises for our entire political system, and that is: can, and should, judges render objectively impartial verdicts? To say it another way: is it even possible for judges to put their personal beliefs aside when making decisions?

Effectively, Judge Sotomayor says 'no' to those questions. But she then commits the cardinal sin: she says that partiality is a good thing.

Now, many on the left are running in circles and trying to act as though it has all been 'taken out of context'. However, if anything, the most discussed sentence doesn't do the entire message of the speech justice. Her words are a direct response to Sandra Day O'Connor's statement that she believed a wise old woman and a wise old man would reach the same, impartial decision. That, if anything, is a statement that there is an absolute objective standard to be reached and that one with enough wisdom and experience will be able to reach it. The statement certainly doesn't make a subjective claim to the value of that decision (whether it is good or bad), but makes clear that a (one, a single, only one) decision will be reached. Judge Sotomayor's comment says (paraphrasing and editorializing) "No, I'm sorry, but that is not possible and not desirable. There are certain voices that are not heard in your standard of 'objectivity.' A Latina should be able to speak to that, challenging your definition, which will be better for the law." She is saying that subjectivity is a natural part of a judge's role and that it should be celebrated.

That is a major difference form the past. For years, even Democratic appointees have harped on about the limited role of judges in our system and the importance of the rule of law. Chief Justice Roberts is famous (to those who actually pay any attention to confirmation hearings) for his analogy of the Court to an umpire in baseball. The notion of judicial restraint and its fundamental precept of objectivity has always received airtime. Never has a potential justice said that subjectivity ('empathy' is the President's favorite word for it) is desirable. Usually, it is brought up as something that exists and will certainly inform the decisions of judges because we are human. Rarely has it been celebrated.

As the hearings move on, we'll see if this is brought up. It's a bit too philosophical for senators to debate the nature of objectivity, so I'll guess there will just be a lot of grandstanding instead. It would be a good question, though, to raise.

Do you, Judge Sotomayor, believe that there is an objective, impartial decision that exists for each case? Do you believe that it is possible for judges to find that? Do you think it is worthwhile for them to try?

I wonder...

Plausibility vs. Accuracy

Last night, I was attending a bachelor party for a friend, and after returning to his house, we grabbed some beer and pizza and turned on the movie Shooter. All the other guys there seemed to think it was an incredible movie, mostly due to the eponymous sniping and the 'hot chick.' I, to be completely honest, thought it was terrible. I was trying to figure out why the movie struck me as so bad. It wasn't the action scenes, since those were well executed (they had a home where the gas had been turned on explode like it was a petroleum tank; a real house would have simply caught on fire). It wasn't even really the plot (a Marine sniper is framed for the assassination of an Ethiopian archbishop). It was the over-the-top inaccuracy involved.

Before anyone chews me out for that statement, I know that many, many movies are inaccurate. However, most of those movies aren't trying to be real-life thrillers. What seems to make a good movie is one that remains accurate to the real-life institutions it is representing while pushing the envelope on plausibility.

As an example, take an excellent real-life thriller, The Departed. The film is accurate through its representation of the mob and the workings of the State Police and the FBI. Were a mole for the Winter Hill Gang to actually enter the Massachusetts State Police, he would likely act in the way shown in the film: he would seek as much information as possible, he would use a different cell phone setup when contacting his mob connections, and he would meet those connections in nondescript places where he would be unlikely to be trailed. The Police, on the other hand, would be restrained, as they are in the movie, needing to meet a high standard of evidence before taking an actual case to trial. The movie works within the real bounds of the institutions it represents. It pushes plausibility with the coincidences of the two moles at the same time, the parallelism of the characters, their simultaneous relationship with the same woman, and their ultimate fates. It is that 'what if' that makes the movie impressive.

Shooter is a plausible movie. The notion of a top sniper being framed for assassination by a rogue band of intelligence agents sound like an interesting plot. However, the abundant inaccuracies regarding the workings of the government were astounding and, ultimately, disappointing. A short listing of dead-wrong moments:

• The military abandoning the shooter and his partner. Even on top secret missions, the Army makes every attempt to find a missing soldier. Beyond the obvious honor-duty-country reasoning, it is necessary not to abandon those who have families that might go to the press and seriously damage both the reputation and the morale of the armed forces. The CIA may have such moments, which the families would be made aware of; the military does not.
  
• The military following orders of a rogue senator. Senators, even those on the Senate Armed Services Committee, have no ability to issue orders. There would never be an operation without the express consent of the Secretary of Defense or the Director of the CIA, and the President would likely be briefed. A Senator (maybe) could hire out contractors, but the actual military would never be involved without someone else either being fooled (which the movie gives no indication of) or knowledgeable of it. It's called the separation of powers--the executive branch runs the military, the legislative controls the pursestrings.
  
• The CIA knowing about a potential assassination attempt and allowing the President to speak anyway. This one is really ridiculous, and it harms the believability of the main character more than the movie itself. He's supposed to be trained in counterintelligence and intuitively brilliant. Wouldn't anyone with half a brain know that if there is a likely assassination attempt, then the President's remarks would be moved indoors or canceled outright? The Secret Service doesn't play games with the President's safety. Any idiot would realize something fishy with the government allowing a sniper to even get a gun and a clean shot at the President.
• The Archbishop of Ethiopia. There is no archbishop of Ethiopia. There is an archdiocese in Addis Ababa (the Ethiopian capital), but not for the entire country. That should have been simple enough to correct. The writers could have just added the line "It's the archbishop of Addis Ababa, who they consider a spiritual guide throughout Ethiopia."
• The punishment of the FBI agent. An FBI agent who was attacked by a suspected assassin (especially an assassin trained at the level of Mark Wahlberg's character) would be more important as a witness at the assassin's trial than anything else. It may be an embarrassment for him and for the agency, but he certainly wouldn't have a review with Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and be ostracized from the rest of the agents (add in that he was 'fresh out of the Academy', and he wouldn't be expected to handle that situation). Additionally, OPR only investigates attorneys accused of abuse of prosecutorial (or other) authority. It has nothing to do with agents for the FBI.
• The final review with the Attorney General. This meeting was ridiculous on many, many levels. First, evidence for an assassination as important as a gun would never be simply left on a table for a meeting. Additionally, the gun would be with an agent at all times and not left (duh) at the end of the table next to the suspect, who is (duh, again) one of the world's best snipers. Second, a prisoner of that magnitude would not be 'uncuffed' unless there was security personnel around him. He certainly wouldn't be allowed to shake the hand of an FBI agent there. He also certainly would not be allowed to be there without an attorney present. Third, (and probably most importantly) the meeting wouldn't have even happened, since the Attorney General and FBI Director simply don't meet with prisoners, no matter how important they are. Bobby Kennedy would never have met with Lee Harvey Oswald for any reason. Instead, investigators and attorneys would have met with him. The Attorney General is an administrator, not an active investigator. Fourth, the Attorney General has no power to simply order that a prisoner be released. The Justice Department must first file paperwork order the withdrawal of a complaint due to lack of evidence, which must then go to a judge with jurisdiction. The judge orders the release. Fifth, somehow the Attorney General simply believes the FBI agent who says that Danny Glover's character was involved in Ethiopian genocide, after he provides 'proof', which is simply photos of a mass grave. Sorry, pal. You can't just show photos of genocide, accuse someone of perpetrating it, and then expect them to be detained. Even more embarrassing, however, is the Attorney Generals inability to know his own jurisdiction. 18 USC 1091 covers the crime of Genocide, which, if the perpetrator is in the US, can be charged.

Overall, an okay action movie with a really, really inaccurate subtext.

Up and Away!

This has been a very eventful week. We have a Supreme Court nominee to replace David Souter, Pat Fitzgerald indicted a Chicago alderman, North Korea is about to incite the Korean War Redux, and, on a more uplifting note, Disney/Pixar's Up is opening.

I haven't seen the movie, and I don't know the full plot. What I do know is that an old man wants to go on an adventure so airlifts his house out of the city by way of thousands of balloons, inadvertently carrying an adorable boy scout with him. Somewhere in there a dog named Dug (who wears a collar that vocalizes his thoughts) and a female bird named Kevin show up. It seems totally random, but, as per usual with Pixar, the reviews are outstanding.

There are a few featurettes that I've found. Enjoy!

In Memoriam

Memorial Day Order

General Order 11.

I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way, arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are here to play, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull and other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain in us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains, and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude—the soldiers and sailors widow and orphan.

II. It is the purpose of the Commander in Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

III. Department commanders will use every effort to make this Order effective.

By Command of:

John A. Logan
Commander in Chief

May 5, 1868