Airplane!

I enjoyed Zero Hour! both on its own as a 1950s airplane disaster film and because it is so much like Airplane!. I decided to watch the "real thing" so to speak and see the two parody films.

The Airplane! DVD menu is set up creatively with airplane jargon. It also has a commentary track, an extended version track, and a track with trivia. I checked out the other tracks (not the extended version -- should have just watched it -- most DVDs have a collection of extra scenes). The commentary was reasonable but didn't watch the whole thing.

Airplane II: The Sequel's DVD just had the movie. The film is predictably not as funny as the first but as sequels go is fine. William Shatner (this was just when he began again in the Star Trek films) was especially fun. It also has the early 1980s "we will give you one" bit of gratuitous topless nudity in a PG film.  

I haven't watched either film for a long time. I was still amused and impressed at how much work went into both of them. The films have three basic classes of actors. You have older actors like Robert Stack who were known for their serious roles. Toss in a gimmick role of a basketball player (Zero Hour! had a non-professional play a pilot).  

You had the two leads who at that time hadn't done too much (one did have a sitcom role in Angie). So, it was a good find (one trivia bit said David Letterman read for the Striker role!) to get such perfect choices. 

And, then you had a bunch of supporting roles, including many very amusing bits. A few faces are familiar (Jonathan Banks, who later was familiar playing heavies, had a small role). It takes a lot of talent to have such a large cast do so much good.

Books 

Herod the Great: Jewish King in a Roman World by Martin Goodman is a straightforward history of the Jewish king best known as a heavy in the New Testament. The book is part of a series of short Jewish biographies. We mainly know about him because Josephus wrote about him in his histories.  

The "killing of the innocents" story is fictional. OTOH, he did have a history of having multiple family members (including a wife, multiple sons, and an elderly grandfather-in-law) killed for fear that they threatened his authority. Early on, it was impressive he rose so far without being in a royal family. 

Not that engrossing but was an okay way to learn about the biblical character. 

==

Piglet is a recent fictional novel. The title comes from an unfortunate childhood nickname that stuck. Her bestie doesn't use it but we never hear her use the actual name either. So, she's always referenced as "Piglet." We get the real name near the end.

We never (quite annoying) are told what horrible secret her fiancé told her two weeks before the wedding. Whatever it is, her attempt to continue with the wedding plans led her to have a sort of mental breakdown. Meanwhile, she had more and more embarrassing things happen to her. Rather depressing.

The book starts fine enough and it was easy reading as I hoped (1) to find out the secret and (2) get her to move on from being such a pathetic loser but it basically didn't go anywhere. She finally realizes that the marriage is a big mistake late in the book. 

Oh, joy.  The book promises to be a story about a woman who realizes her life is unsatisfying. But, it really doesn't seem to be that bad, except for her loser of a husband-to-be. Not marrying a jerk is significant but the book jacket suggests a bit more. 

She has an embarrassing family (her parents after all still call her "Piglet") but that is fairly typical. It is suggested at one point her sister has her own body issues but that is dropped. 

She's also a food editor and the book has a lot of food stuff. So, we have pages of her prepping and cooking meals and such. It reads natural enough, to the degree I can tell (not much of a cook), but again, it doesn't really go anywhere. It feels like filler. 

I don't read much fiction. This was not a good example of the few I do read. 

ETA: After writing this, I found a famous modern version of Gilgamesh -- the ancient myth -- with various appendixes. I read it a long time ago in school. It has a lot of stuff, including an early flood narrative.

"Facts On the Dining Hall? Sabra Hummus was the Main Get For UCR Protestors"

[I expand this discussion here.]

Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) has a new piece entitled "Facts On the Dining Hall? Sabra Hummus was the Main Get For UCR Protestors." 

It received the expected sarcastic replies when he posted it on Twitter. Malcolm Nance, a strong Trump critic who has taken a one-note stance on anti-Israeli protests, retweeted it.

The article upfront notes that the University of California at Riverside negotiated a peaceful settlement to end an encampment there. These pro-Palestinian encampments have received some one-sided negative coverage. The fact the college negotiated with the protesters is notable. Only a few colleges have significantly done that. 

What did the protestors get in return?

A major controversy is investments in businesses that help Israel, particularly arm manufacturers. The specific school here does not have the power to disinvest. So, a task force is promised with a bunch of caveats.

(The first item in the agreement -- which is not cited by JM -- is a promise of full disclosure of UC investments, updated as appropriate.)

The "most concrete" thing is allegedly a review of Sabra Hummus (co-managed by an Israeli manufacturer), which JM says the group hopes to be banned from the dining halls. The agreement does not say anything about banning. Also, the link provided shows that they want it banned from the campus as a whole.  

The agreement also regulates study abroad programs, which has implications for studying in Israel. The School of Business has also discontinued global programs in Israel and other places, including Cuba, Vietnam, and Brazil. A university FAQ clarifies:

Through our dialogue, we learned that these study-abroad programs were not offered under the auspices of the UC Riverside Office of International Affairs, nor are they consistent with university policies. So they are being discontinued.  

Okay.  The protest side sees the agreement as a first step. They will have a wait-and-see attitude. If they are not satisfied, they might start encampments again. That this is an "SNL sketch" as one back/forth on Twitter asserts (with JM agreeing) is rather dubious.

The Sabra hummus thing is an easy thing to ridicule/latch on to, but it is but one aspect of the agreement. The very fact that there was a negotiation provides the protestors some value. And is it really that the "main get," going by the list? Why are the other things basically meaningless?

If we move past ridicule, the campaign against Sabra has been ongoing for around fifteen years. There is clearly a symbolic quality to it, down to the very name (Jew born in Israel). Perhaps, instead of sneering, we can understand why it was one of multiple aspects of the agreement.

Or, we can go another way, I guess. 

Odds and Ends

The Blondie film series on a classic channel circled back to the beginning, giving me a shot to watch a few I missed. 

The episodes annoyed me with multiple Blondie jealous plots, mixed in with them (at times as a result of both of their stupidity) money issues. The latest involved a mink coat that was over $180. That wouldn't be that cheap for a family on a budget today for a coat! Imagine in the early 1940s. 

==

Stephen Colbert made a joke in the consistently blah "meanwhile" segment about this serious story:

Long Island baker investigated for reselling Dunkin’ doughnuts as own vegan, gluten-free treats

The tale of a vegan baker/supplier is not as amusing especially when you mix in that last part. Sometime back, there was a story about someone suing regarding fries cooked in animal fat or some such thing. This was against their ethical and perhaps religious values. This is not too funny.

This story has an additional component that "posed a major risk to endangering people with sensitivities or life-threatening allergies to wheat or dairy." Anyway, Colbert joked that the donuts were discovered because they were tasty. Vegan donuts can be tasty. Also, Dunkin' in my view is not very good. Some donuts are decent. They aren't like delicious or something.

===

The Alabama legislature passed a bill to provide immunity to providers of IVF. Some people and institutions providing related services will only be liable for "compensatory damages calculated as the price paid for the impacted in vitro cycle." 

The legislation is a holding action until other complications related to the recent ruling can be addressed. The legislature along with Republicans overall wanted to show they were not monsters who opposed IVF. They admit that the ruling left open various troubling issues. 

Two things. First, it is unclear how much simple legislation can address what the opinion said was based on the state constitution. Second, total immunity for providers seems wrong, since "death of an embryo" can still be a civil wrong on the occasion of negligence or whatnot. The problem is treating it like an unborn child.

==

A good find in a WWI Supreme Court case rejecting a constitutional challenge to conscription. The Chief Justice (who fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side) referenced a "suggestion made by the Government that because of impertinent and scandalous passages contained in the brief of the appellant the brief should be stricken from the files." 

The passage is not explicitly cited. The opinion agrees with the sentiment but leaves it in as a warning to others. This sort of thing invites people to really want to know what is being referenced. The Internet helps, even before the professor can research the question.  

I found a copy of a 1918 book on fighting German spies noting:

In his brief before that Court Hannis Taylor used language so violent that the counsel for the Government asked that it be expunged from the record. Taylor in his brief accused the President of being a “dictator,” of seizing powers “in open defiance of the judgments” of the Supreme Court, and of demanding “such an aggregation of powers as no monarch ever wielded in any constitutional government that ever existed.”

Hannis Taylor (who -- everything is connected! -- has Alabama connections) has an interesting biography. I suppose it is the same guy. As to challenging conscription, that was done during the Civil War too. It does appear logical that when the Constitution specifically cites the purposes of the militia, it is the only reason the federal government can call it up. 

The Selective Draft Cases provided the main argument upholding the draft, including for foreign wars. Arguments based on religious liberty and the Thirteenth Amendment were dismissed as not worthy of comment.

==

I checked a local library for DVDs and found the third season of the British mystery show Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators.

The series takes place in the actual Shakespeare's old haunts though it takes place in the current day. Frank Hathaway is a retired police detective now in private service. The series began with Luella Shakespeare hiring him. She later joined his firm. I will try to see the first episode and find out if she is supposedly a descendant of William.

I have seen half (five episodes) of the season so far. The episodes are around forty minutes (PBS British mysteries tend to be around fifty minutes long). They were light enjoyment. It was a decent way to wile the evening away as it rained outside. 

Trip to NYPL

I went to the New York Public Library (NYPL) at 40th and 5th Avenue, which was renovated a few years ago. The new version is impressive. If you go down 41st (from Grand Central), look down to see the sidewalk poetry.  I took the Express Bus ($7 now) back. 

I will always think of it as the "Mid-Manhattan" though it has a new name. On the "stacks" level of the first floor (1M) there are many DVDs, CDs, and audiobooks. It was closed when I went, but there is a food court now, and a rooftop terrace area (I never went there).  

It somewhat amazes me that I can go to a library filled with books and not find much interesting. I did take some DVDs and books out, including an interesting one I'm reading by a federal judge (now retired) on Justice Douglas' environmental record. I spent hours there this time.

Eat With Me is a pleasant film involving a gay man who runs a struggling restaurant. His mother shows up one day, driven crazy by her husband. George Takei pops up late in a cameo. Nicole Sullivan, from Mad TV and other programs, is in the film as a wacky neighbor. The film again overall is pleasant. Nothing special but I enjoyed it as a whole. 

The Cigarette Girl From Mosselprom is a silent Russian film from the 1920s. I saw the first half or so of the film. The film concerns a young cigarette seller (looking it up, the woman had a long history in film) whom three very different men (an office worker, a cameraman, and an older American industrialist) fall for. 

She becomes an actress. Meanwhile, a woman in the same office is hoping the guy asks her to marry her, raising another complication. The film is basically a romantic comedy. One amusing scene is when the office worker tries to "save" the woman from committing suicide. Turns out to be a movie scene. 

It is amazing to watch a black-and-white film that shows life in the 1920s Soviet Union. The fact it is a silent film doesn't make it unwatchable though just listening to a musical soundtrack is annoying. The acting and overall filmmaking are good. The overall story, however, is such that it will keep my interest for a film that is around two hours long. I think if the film was a third shorter or something, it would have helped.

Mind you, I stopped watching after around forty minutes, but that is my overall sentiment. It still is a film people should check out.  

I also took out the second season of Drop Dead Diva (an empty-headed beautiful woman dies and her soul is returned into the body of a heavy-set and dull lawyer). I watched the show when it was on until I think it overlasted its welcome. Also, an Australian TV series, which I will comment on later if I find it worthwhile.  

The library has a whole section of television DVDs, including classical and foreign shows. It is a prime resource. 

Biden Pardons Two Birds

Following a tradition normalized in the 1980s, Biden also pardoned the turkeys Liberty and Bell yesterday, marking the unofficial start of the holiday season. The birds will move to the University of Minnesota’s College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences where they will become educational ambassadors for a state where turkey production provides more than $1 billion in economic activity and more than 26,000 jobs.

I wish someone would end this asinine process. What exactly is the point of "pardoning" a turkey? The usual process is to have these cutesy names, make some jokes, politick some, and so on. 

West Wing tells us presidents do not have the power to pardon fowl. Well, maybe if they commit some federal crime. The president also might be given the power by statute to do so. He can also pardon a bird (in a non-criminal sense) while carrying out his presidential powers. He is basically given the power to do this by whatever process is in place here.

Local politicians are giving out turkeys around my way. One referenced also giving way produce. Last year, Twitter provided better access to the people I followed. This included a local account that let me know when they were handing out free produce (fruit, vegetables, beans, etc.). My feed is much less helpful. I might have missed one of these hand-outs.

Not everyone eats turkey. I am a vegetarian who tries to be as much of a vegan as I can. I have been so since the mid-1990s. You don't have to be one to find this pardon business silly. It's hard to end these traditions. So, we are going to continue to have them. And, have people complain.

One lay-up is that criminal justice advocates sneer at the limited use of the pardon power for actual humans. One blog, some strongly conservative sort (rabidly so at times) agreed. Our criminal justice system is very troubling. There have been some mild efforts to address the problems. Some bipartisan action has been done there nationwide. Rachel Barkow and Emily Bazelon are two people who have written books on this topic.

I clearly agree. Congress could help by establishing some guidelines, including a special pardon administrator who selects people from a range of places to help them. The president (or members of the Justice Department) can independently do so. There has not been a recent drive to do so. It's a shame. Again, inertia helps here as does fear of crime. Still, there are enough bipartisan forces available for there to be some movement here. 

Thanksgiving can also be designated as a special time to announce many pardons. Actual pardons, not just of turkeys. People can return to their families. People already out can have their records made clean. It would be an appropriate way to celebrate the holiday.  

A final concern would be all those involved in the Thanksgiving season. We can have special concerns for agricultural workers and animals raised. The retailers who sell the food and supplies. The workers there. The mothers and family members as a whole who make the dinners. Some (like me) will join some members of their family to eat outside the home.

I am already seeing Christmas trees (at the store) and displays. Let's focus on that after Thanksgiving. And, let's honor the season the best we can. Or in the words of President Biden:

I encourage the people of the United States of America to join together and give thanks for the friends, neighbors, family members, and strangers who have supported each other over the past year in a reflection of goodwill and unity.

Happy Holidays. 

Film and Books

The NYPL doesn't have much in the way of Clara Bow, the famous "flapper" actress, films. But, did have this interesting film where she is not the main attraction. She plays "Kittens," the selfish daughter, who takes after her father, a philandering businessman. 

Left out is her mother, who left the stage to marry, but she decides to "live" some herself. Alice Joyce (about 35 here) according to Wikipedia was in films at least as far back as 1910. Both actresses made a few talkies, Bow retiring under the age of 30. 

This silent, based on a play, has feminist aspects. The ending has her refusing to go back to her husband and daughter. The instrumental soundtrack gets a bit one-note after a while. Still, at about an hour, the film was quite watchable. I overall enjoyed it. 

==

The Gaza Strip/Israel conflict makes the timing of a book about the history of The Jewish Deli feel a bit off. 

Still, we can't require it to carry that burden. The graphic book is an enjoyable and informative volume. There is even a reference (if not among the full profiles) of a vegan deli. There seem to be a lot of eggs in Jewish foods, putting aside all the meat, fish, and dairy meals. I did have a bagel for breakfast to be in the groove. 

I heard the author of The Tango War give an interview about her recent book on the Catholic Church (Freedom From Religion interview). This one covers the various aspects of Latin America's role in World War II. I am familiar with some of this ground but not all of it. Well done. I will likely provide a more extensive book summary in a few weeks. 

Sunday Night Quickie

NY Jets need a new QB ("back-up" if you wish). They got Rodgers since they didn't trust the guy they have now. One good series doesn't change it. They again lost to the Patriots, the final (aside from the desperation toss at the end) drive underlining the simple inability for this guy to do anything. It was embarassing. As is Dallas' loss to Arizona.

The Astros being swept by the Royals is too, less so the Mets being swept by the Phillies. But, Seattle is struggling too, now 1/2 game out of wild card contention. The last slot now is held by the Astros, who would lose a tiebreaker with Seattle.

Chris Geidner's latest on the Supreme Court has an updated paragraph that is especially useful link-wise. Decent YA book on chocolate.

Lasagna Means I Love You

Lasagna Means I Love You by Kate O'Shaughnessy was misshelved in the library.  I took it out instead of putting it where it belonged.  

Like A Spoonful of Time, the book was about a middle school girl with a non-nuclear family with food playing an important role, particularly with themes involving family and trying to find out about family you don't know.  That one involved time travel, this one about a girl who enters the foster system after her grandmother dies.   

Mo first goes to a woman who already has a foster child, but she soon is put in a "pre-adoption" placement with a young well-off white couple.  This seems a lucky break on her part and a non-white foster child who already had multiple placements grumbled about it. Mo later talks about the unfairness of the situation and we also get a bit of an inside look at the system. It is shown with a certain degree of complexity.

The story takes place in New York City and we get a sense of place there as a whole.  For instance, Mo is a big Jets fan (though for some reason the author did not seem to get the right teams when she cited two games), a an NYT food writer is involved, as trips are on the subway and to Central Park. 

The book is written in Mo's voice -- she writes letters to her grandmother about what is happening -- and overall she comes off as a real character (including having trouble with bedwetting, which at first she wants to blame on someone else).  A few times, I wondered if words were what some typical 11/12-year-old would say, but what do I know about them? 

Her experiences are not exactly typical in some respects  (that whole well-off couple though the author mixes in some nuance by making the wife a former foster kid herself) but the book feels realistic as a whole.  There is a twist, and you are like "the author isn't going to be this mean to this kid, right," but things work out.  

Both books promote diversity with biracial friends and gay-friendly stuff is simply dropped without much comment.  I suppose again this is just normal stuff for many kids these days.  The author went to culinary school so the recipes come from a reliable source on that end too.  The recipes aren't very vegan/vegetarian friendly though I suppose most of them can be changed with some animal substitutes including veggie crumbles for the lasagna. 

And, both of the author's books (the time travel book is by someone else; she talks about her first book a bit in the video) are about family and finding it in new and challenging ways.   

ETA:  I found Because of Winn Dixie by Kate DiCamillo (I read her book about a special French mouse) on the free rack today since apparently it's "middle school girl" theme day.  Food doesn't play as big of a role here though some special lozenges do.  I liked it too.

A girl with only a dad finds a special dog and he helps her make a lot of colorful friends in her new town.  The dog doesn't like to be alone, so I guess when she started school (the book all takes place in the summer), her dad and maybe one of the others helped to take care of him.  Unless the school lets him stick around too.  The book was the author's first and was made into a movie.  She has written many more since then.   

I don't know if any are gay, but it wouldn't surprise me. 

A Spoonful of Time

Someone asked me to find her some time travel books in the library and A Spoonful of Time popped up among the books.

The book involves a middle school Korean-American girl who lives around the present time.  [I listened to a bit of a podcast with the author and she noted she first wrote a form of the story a few years back.]  Her dad died years back and her mom is stressing up raising her alone, even before her own mom (whose memory is slipping) suddenly popped up one day.

Maya is happy to see her grandmother, especially when she cooks traditional meals, which her mom no longer wishes to do.  And, her grandmom shows her how to travel thru time through the power of the memories of food.  Maya meets a boy her own age in her travels.  Meanwhile, she has her bestie at home though there are some complications there when she falls for another classmate.

(The fact the two friends here are of different nationalities and that one likes a girl -- only late is "dating" dropped without fanfare -- is handled as no big thing.  Which is as it should be.  It's 2023.)  

The author (like the mom in the story) works in law, loves pugs (her Twitter feed is filled with pictures of them) -- Maya and her mom have a dog -- and knows about Korean food.  So, Flora Ahn mixes in some of what she knows.  This appears to be her first full-length young adult book, though she has what is labeled "chapter books" about two pugs.  

The food/time travel concept is creative.  The book has some interesting ideas about the nature of time travel.  And, Maya and her grandmother  [well ... there's a twist there] are no experts on how it all works.  Why would they?  Having special talents does not mean you know all the tricks.  A good cook does not always know exactly how all the cooking works.  There is some "art" involved that is natural to the person.

I liked the book.  This is a case where my closest relationship would be with the mother even if the daughter is the main character.  But, this doesn't mean -- like for many young adult books -- only children and teens would like it.  The book is not "dumbed down" in its tone without being inappropriately complex (it is a third-person narrator from the perspective of Maya).  It also tells a family story with a time travel twist. 

The book includes some recipes for the Korean dishes referenced.  Finally, the book has some serious themes, including the loss of a parent.  But, it is not totally depressing.  Its plot makes sure not to be.  I think perhaps it does this once too often. OTOH, maybe a sequel will tell us more.  The book clearly sets us up for further adventures of some kind.  

(Recall it is a plot; it is not like this stuff actually happened! There is a disclaimer on the copyright page and everything.)  

---

The handling of loss is an important theme in the story and warrants tossing in something I was thinking about somewhat connected to it. 

One thing that strikes me is how some people turn against God, at least temporarily when something happens. I know someone like this: they were very upset when a closed loved one suffered.  But, it is not like no one else suffers. Or, that other people's own families did not suffer in the past.  

We should not just think people are silly or selfish.  People are human.  They compartmentalize and things change when something serious happens to them personally.  I'm sure the same happened to me at times in some fashion.  And, not only do different people react differently, they often react depending on how old they are or for any number of reasons.

Another thing is that I think of God as a sort of poetic metaphor.  Going with that, think things thru.  A person close to you suffering is likely to change your world.  Your own sense of "good" and "just" is given a shake.  Your own world has become less godly, even if suffering is an ancient reality, and that one more person doing so is not a novel thing. 

A person questioning "God" should be seen in this context. The person is questioning the overall sense of goodness in the world and in their own world.  Not everyone thinks of the universe as something where a typical Christian-type version of God is the focus.  My understanding, for instance, is that Hindus have a broader view of "god stuff."  

Anyway, when we consider our roles in the universe and how people react to it, we should be humble and compassionate.  We should also think things through (not everyone deeply contemplates things; we can do this in different ways).  Consider the concept of "inyeon," referenced in the book, which roughly describes the ties between two people over their lifetimes. 

SCOTUS Watch: Libs Have Their Day

SCOTUSBlog provides a summary of the announcement of opinions which is even more helpful since the Supreme Court refuses to provide audio or video.  So, we can't see Jackson and Sotomayor provide a straightforward summary, Kagan have some fun with a dog toy case, and Roberts provide a long announcement with a bit of drama in a voting rights case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is first up with Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, finding that the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act unambiguously creates enforceable rights under Section 1983.  Barrett and Roberts concur to note why it is an easy case. Gorsuch flags a potential way to challenge something like it in the future. Alito and Thomas dissent.   

The case is one of those "trying to do too much but you never know" cases that worry liberal court watchers.  Another possible liberal win is federal regulations and/or criminal cases that are stretched too far.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor handled Dubin v. United States, which limits the scope of identity theft under a federal criminal statute.  Gorsuch, at times worried about federal power, concurred to snark a bit about how far they went.

Then, there are a range of pretty safe cases like the dog toy case which led to a trademark challenge from Jack Daniels.  Kagan had some fun with that one, including bringing a prop to the opinion announcement. Sotomayor (with Alito) concurred to touch upon one issue while Gorsuch (and Thomas/Barrett), while "pleased" to join, questioned the value of a precedent involved.  

The unanimity was a bit surprising, but it was a narrow holding turning on partially that the toy not merely being a parody but a "brand" itself.  We get pictures too.  

===

The last way for liberals to win is to avoid backsliding on important matters (such as the Voting Rights Act).  You might also get a narrow win that is nice but not too exciting, especially since it is a 5-4 breakdown on something that should be much less divisive.  And, sometimes you have a somewhat (or more than somewhat) surprising win.

Allen v. Milligan has a bit of each. President Biden said:

Today the Court ruled that Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing a map that diluted Black votes in the state. The right to vote and have that vote counted is sacred and fundamental — it is the right from which all of our other rights spring. Key to that right is ensuring that voters pick their elected officials — not the other way around. Today’s decision confirms the basic principle that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race, but our work is not done. Vice President Harris and I will continue to fight to pass both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act, and the Freedom to Vote Act to ensure fair Congressional maps and that all Americans have their voices heard.

Multiple voting rights advocates were rather shocked at this. Some did remind us that this is the one that the Supreme Court held up in 2022 on their shadow docket (see Steve Vladeck's book) and in the process (others also were blocked) helped the Republicans win a narrow victory in November in the House elections.  The margin of victory was less than the number of House districts involved, all likely to have been Democratic-leaning if the lower court rulings were allowed to stand. 

So, yes, I agree with Prof. Melissa Murray's take.  We can note the victory without being too excited.  People are also not really sure that the ruling turned on the law. One professor argued this was partially Roberts' revenge for Dobbs (abortion).  Many figured it is a response to criticism and concern about going too far.*  Kavanaugh (who was the one vote that switched and who joined most of the opinion) seems to be the sort of prudential sort that would find such weighing quite copacetic.  

Others warn about what is to come -- we didn't have too many really bad rulings this term and the affirmative action case among others are coming.  I think all of these issues (not sure about the revenge thing as much as Roberts finding a mild way to balance it to show the Court is reasonable) play some part in judging.  Lines are drawn. They aren't just mechanical. Wins have some baggage.  

And so on.  Somewhat related, the voting rights advocate Dale Ho (nominated in 2021) appeared to be finally about to be confirmed as a district court judge in New York.  But, a Democratic senator was out for health reasons and it seems Manchin might not want to support him (Manchin rarely opposes nominees, and unclear why he is being a tool unlike say an environmental secretary) so there was no margin for error.

This led to the confirmation being held up.  This pisses me off. Not a single Republican was willing to at least not vote because they so despise voting rights that a blue state district court judge cannot be confirmed.  Why should they get any comity like blue slips if they refuse to act reasonably?  

It is just evidence of having them play you as fools. Dick Durbin is an asshole on this.  The evidence that Republican hardball in the courts helped to win them the House of Representatives only reaffirms this is not a time to be soft.  It isn't too hard.  It just isn't.  It pisses me off.  

===

More to come next week (orders and two days of opinions).  

---

* One Slate analysis argued part of it is that Roberts is bothered by "really bad arguments or overreaching activists."  

And, at one point suggests (a bit tongue in cheek) that "perhaps we have reached the part of the show where simply not being punched in the face over and over at the high court counts as a good day."

Still, the opinion is the law, and lower court judges can't just say "Hey, he didn't really mean it."  This includes a respectful summary of the Voting Rights Act precedents and Kagan comments like:

The principal dissent complains that “what the District Court did here is essentially no different from what many courts have done for decades under this Court’s superintendence….” That is not such a bad definition of stare decisis.

Anyway, life goes on.  

ETA: Also, Melissa Murray and Steve Vladeck co-wrote an op-ed to expand their Twitter comments. Bottom line: don't be fooled into thinking all is well.  Biden reminded us we need a voting rights bill.  Holding a flawed line is not fantastic. 

And, SCOTUS needs to be reformed, including addressing the likes of Kavanaugh, who might eventually, kinda do the right thing, at times.  Don't settle for crumbs or even a bit of crust.

People have pushed back on their tone since it was not a trivial victory.  But, it's too late not to be wary.  And, Kavanaugh was the fifth vote, tossing in a possible poison pill. Ditto that 7-2 with three justices in the majority making sure to hedge and limit.  

A Bit About Two Films

A classic movies channel has a Blondie feature on Saturday mornings.  The old comic strip (still going on, the character being a flapper suggests how long ago it began) became a film series during the 1940s.  Those were the days of multiple pleasant standards including the Bowery Boys and Andy Hardy.   

Blondie was of this character; two attempts at television series (one with the original Bumstead though watching a bit once he seemed more serious) were not as successful.  Penny Singleton played the title character; the character's husband was clearly the show's star. He was laid on a bit thick though then we are talking about a comic strip character.

Penny Singleton later was the mother's voice on The Jetsons, which she also played years later when a film was made (Tiffany voiced the daughter).  Her Wikipedia page (see also) highlighted as well her later work as a labor representative, including testifying in front of Congress about how "B-Girls" were exploited.  She even was accused of slander against a labor leader though the charge was eventually dropped. 

She plays a standard housewife type (being Dagwood Bumstead's wife though does require some levelheadedness and independence of mind; can't rely on that goofball too much).  The character is not as sexy as the comic strip version though Penny Singleton's background would be comparable to the "flapper" version.  I was not aware of her interesting advocacy.

Today's film was Blonde in the Dough (cookies that is) in which radio plays an important role.  Typical Bumstead clowning.  

==

Strawberry & Chocolate is a well-received Cuban film from a few decades ago about a surprising friendship between an artistic-loving gay guy and a somewhat hapless straight guy.  I could not really get into it though it seemed well-made and well-acted.  The film was somewhat controversial as a criticism of the Cuban position on GLBTQ issues and such.

A few notable scenes even in the first ten minutes or so.  Our hapless straight guy is not having too much luck with a girl. He gets a view of what he was missing by listening (and then viewing through a peephole) to a couple having sex in the next room.  A nice visual of the rather big-chested woman with a full shot as well of her hairy crotch.

(U.S. films -- even soft porn on Showtime -- are very hesitant to give us such a view.)  

There is also a sly attempt by the homosexual character to pick up the guy, including a bit about ice cream. There is also a bit involving a bit with a civilian official asking if the couple consents to marriage after being made aware of "Articles 24-28." I checked and this refers to provisions that provide a socialist-inspired bit of equality in marriage, including a responsibility of providing equal support in the marriage.  

I'm all for that to be at least part of our marriage vows.  Anyway, as I said, the movie did seem to have potential, if I was in the mood for such a thing. A very helpful thing was that the subtitles were nice and clear.  A few films have tiny subtitles [NY Daily News shrunk lately; I wrote them a letter complaining and it actually was published] and it's hard for me to see.  

SCOTUS Watch

After some blockbusters last term (abortion, religion, guns, etc.), SCOTUS has so far been much more low-key this term. This is partially because not much has gone on. There are still (with five opinions on Thursday and one not decided) under twenty opinions this term so far. There will be another opinion day next week.

Amy Howe analyzes basically the one big (in a fashion) case decided this week, a fractured judgment that upheld a California law regulating the sale of pork:

Approved by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12 bars the sale in California of pork products when the seller knows or should know that the meat came from the offspring of a breeding pig (also known as a sow) that was confined “in a cruel manner.” This means, among other things, that sows must have at least 24 square feet of living space – about the size of two bath towels.

Many thought the justices would somehow strike down the law though the oral argument hinted they were unsure how to draw lines. The case involves (though Kavanaugh especially separately suggested it concerned more) the so-called domestic commerce clause doctrine. That is, even if Congress doesn't say so, certain things can violate the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Or, otherwise violate the rules of a common national market set forth by the Constitution.

The principle is not new though conservatives such as Scalia, Thomas, and now Gorsuch don't like it.  Gorsuch has a point.  It is difficult, without blatant policy-making, to weigh things here.  The courts do weigh policy questions to some extent.  The question then is when they should. And, economic matters do seem like something Congress should regulate here.  

A majority as a whole split the difference and upheld the law in the end.  This is something that does not split between normal ideological lines as seen by the divisions.  It even led Jackson to join a partial dissent, if not totally, which is the first time she did in a fully argued case.  She has still not been fully in dissent.  Which is something.  

There is also the policy choice here.  I think it does help to some degree to have limited efforts that help animals.  There is an argument (Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb have made it to some degree) that such laws are counterproductive, in part by making us think animals are now raised humanely enough.  I have my doubts. Change comes in installments.  

Anyway, this is the sort of opinion Breyer loves -- somewhat of a surprise without blunt ideological divisions. Why? It has various legal policy implications without rising blatantly ideological concerns.  It's an example of where conservative positions can have liberal results.  And, there are three basic blocs with Jackson being the outlier in one but even there she might be doing so since there is a precedent involved.  

Some also might appreciate that the Court restrained itself, but it is unclear how much the justices wanted to do that. There very well might be four votes to send it back with an implication that the 9th Cir. was very possibly wrong.  Also, it is simplistic to call the Court simply activist, full stop. They pick their spots.  You need to know your "enemy" here.  

ETA: I see that the opinion has a few URLs.  The first opinion of the court this term to have them.  

===

The other opinions are not too notable and were mostly unanimous with a justice concurring a bit here (in one Alito opinion, Jackson didn't join a little portion for some reason), Thomas dissenting there.  The cases do not seem too important though there are some things here and there to comment on of varying interest.  

Kagan in a 8-1 opinion started this way:

The question presented is whether the statute categorically abrogates (legalspeak for eliminates) any sovereign immunity the board enjoys from legal claims. We hold it does not. Under long-settled law, Congress must use unmistakable language to abrogate sovereign immunity. Nothing in the statute creating the board meets that high bar.

Very Kagan.  

Jackson dealt with an administrative case involving a "noncitizen" (the statute speaks of "aliens" but she specifically used that term), citing a Kavanaugh opinion that did so.  Alito with Thomas concurred briefly, saying they would decide less than the majority, and quoted something that used "alien."  She also has been praised as a clear writer. 

Jackson tossed in something that is simple but profound too in these trans-hating times. To cite the beginning of the headnotes summarizing her opinion:

Petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria (who goes by the name Estrella) is a noncitizen in removal proceedings. She sought protection from removal, which an Immigration Judge denied.

The Court also unanimously in a pair of cases continued their policy of making it hard to convict people for political-related fraud, both cases arising from the Cuomo Administration.  As compared to campaign finance cases, again, you find more unanimity in this area, and it is concerning.  Without trying to parse things here, combined with the Citizens United stream of cases, it makes it harder to rein in political wrongdoing.  

===

For those keeping track, the Supreme Court has "rescheduled" (which means the justices meeting in "conference" did not examine it yet) looking at the Glossip appeal.  

There will be orders on Monday.  

Meanwhile, 89-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, working on a limited schedule per doctor's instructions, finally came back to help push a few judicial nominations out of committee. The pictures make her look very frail. Overall, it is outrageous that she is not resigning.

Senate Democrats still refuse as a whole to admit the level of effort, an "all-in," necessary to face the moment, even though there is both a need and probably an opportunity given the growing disgust at the Court. It's aggravating.  

Sunday Thoughts

This weekend has become a sort of the start of the Christmas season for reals thing for me. My mom's birthday is the 10th (Happy Human Rights Week!) and I usually take her out for brunch. I also took out my sister as an early birthday present (did this at least a couple times). And, while at her place, I put up my mom's Christmas tree.

I watched the Holiday Affair, a 1940s generic holiday title if one that is accurate.  A war widow with a young son is hanging on to the past and playing it safe, including going out with a safe, if a somewhat boring guy.  The film's value is shown in part by the guy not just being a boring stereotype.  He gets some respect as well in the screenplay.

While getting into a bit of trouble as a comparison shopper [buying something only for that purpose with no intention of keeping it apparently was illicit at the time], she meets and falls for a more fun guy who also has the nerve to push up against her some.  Harry Morgan (MASH guy) has an amusing bit at the police court.  

Janet Leigh IRL (about 22) is a bit younger than her character seems (her son is like six) to be but worked well.  The mom and son have good chemistry.  There is a bit too cute a scene involving the son and the ending is a bit too rushed, but overall, I liked it.  

The film surely was better watching than Giants/Jets football.  The Eagles just owned the Giants. So, the Giants will go to the rematch with the Commanders tied 7-5-1, continuing their "coming back to earth" period.  

The Jets continued their Defense good, offense, and other things not quite good enough period.  They have been 1-3 (the Bears such and didn't even have their usual starting QB) with each game close enough to be tantalizing.  Zack Wilson (who fell from grace so much he wasn't even the #2 on Sunday) couldn't handle the Pats, setting up for a special teams fail sealing the deal at the end of the game.  Mike White beats the Bears and is overpraised for it.  And, then two close games versus top teams (Vikings and Bills), but the Jets in both looked not quite there.  

The Bills game (who thought the Jets would sweep them? who started as QB the game they did beat them?)  showed a Jets team with multiple issues. First, they gifted the Bills a TD (always a killer) at the end of the half after the old "let's see if they jump" 4th down maneuver actually worked.  The Jets then tied when they came back, but the Bills went up 14-7.  The defense still kept it close, even getting a safety.  

Still, Mike White got hurt, and (oh no!) Flacco came in.  Mike White (somewhat thankfully given Flacco's performance) came back.  After the safety, they were driving (down by 11), but ... turnover.  Time running low, on 4th and 1, they went for the FG later on, and a drive with less than a minute to go was four bad-looking throws.  The coverage I saw did not suggest Wilson is starting any time soon.  

So, what?  Another Jets QB bust?  I need to see Mike White actually win more than a game versus a bad team to tell me he's the one, even if some reports are that his teammates like him.  Oh well.  

The Texans actually showed up versus Dallas, but could not ice the game late.  Dallas ran the length of the film, basically, and iced the game themselves.  Texans either being really bad or finding a way to lose is at least on brand.  It's somewhat amazing the team managed a win and a tie.  

There are lots of holiday movies on these days, including on CBS.  This includes new movies on Saturday and Sunday sometimes. The Holiday Sitter is a basic Hallmark film (the non-domestic guy finding his domestic spirit by having to watch kids was done too), except that this is about a gay guy.  Hallmark now not only has gay supporting characters but is willing to have a few films with gay and lesbian leads.  So, the big kiss now is between two guys.  Which is nice.  The film overall was a decent watch.

==

I noted -- though it might not feel like it -- that next week is Christmas Eve. Hey, Saturday counts, even if it really feels like it's two weeks away.  As to the birthday brunch, the darn place did not have the falafel I wanted.  It was on the menu.  I didn't want my usual veggie burger.  Oh well.  I liked the drink, toasted corn muffin, and coffee.  The other things were okay enough.  And, the price was okay.  I still wonder how Monica and Julie -- back in the 1990s -- spent over $50 for brunch.   

How to Talk to a Science Denier

A local library had a cart with free books, which I noted was a thing these days for NYPL. This one had multiple copies of "uncorrected page proof" copies, which sometimes winds up on the nearest library's free cart, but this was a case of multiple copies of different books. The subject book, now out for real, was one of these books. Here are multiple reviews. 

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason.  I found various good things in it though was not interested enough to read through the whole thing.   The reviews cover much of this ground. 

For instance, there are various factors involved in science denial: cherry-picking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, reliance on fake experts (and the denigration of real experts), logical errors, and setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve.

[These are general concerns in various respects, in part since humans are not scientific minded robots. We have some design fails.  One example is a blog often noting court opinion analysis is really not important, the results are.  But, then, apparently how Kennedy in a purple prose way badly defended gay rights.]

The title is suggestive.  Yes, the author thinks "talking" helps. He [a research fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University] rejects some earlier accounts that trying to convince deniers would simply be counterproductive in each case, that they will just bury into their positions even harder.  There are ways, he says, to combat things here.  

A basic thing is to understand your opposition. Why denial?  It is often a coping mechanism to deal with a scary world or to fit evidence into a certain ideology.  Having "secret knowledge" also might make you feel special.  It often is tied to a specific "identity," which is often but not always (GMOs, some anti-vaxxers) conservative in nature.  

[It is hard to suppose that liberals cannot be science denials. I know liberals as a whole are pro-science, but they also often are more about equality, against corporate power, and so on.  Denial can seep in here, including conspiracy theories and fears of certain science that can become extreme.]

The author suggests a compassionate, engaging approach. Listen.  See what their beliefs are and what would allow them to change their mind. Help them out with such things as charts, graphs, and friendly conversations about basic facts.  Help promote basic science knowledge, and flag not just facts, but techniques used to mislead.  Like the debate book, education is important here.

And, be honest -- admitting we do not know the answers, but that should not be used crudely, in irrational ways against science, can help build trust in the end.  You should use inoculation (guarding against the future), intervention (dealing with current problems), and acting overturning belief.  

This is all difficult in the real world.  Some people (the book makes some suggestive implications "denial" as a whole overlaps -- such as white nationalists, but ultimately pulls back to science)  just seem like lost causes. They can be be offensive (being wrong and an asshole about it is so charming).  And, you have to be skillful.  Debaters of creation scientist, like atheists who debate Christians, have to have special skills. 

Over the years, I have tried to directly engage with certain people on blogs, answering their arguments. This is often a tiresome thing since unreason is so much easier.  You don't have to do careful research and phrasing, which can take a lot of time and effort.  Nonetheless, I did (and to an extent still do) feel it useful (or at least it pleases me, also allowing me to put out my own views) to directly respond to people in detail.  

And, I try (though it is sometimes not easy) to avoid simply sneering at people.  I am no saint, but I don't actually find that a pleasant thing to do on a basic level.  Again, I realize my limitations. On Twitter, I do a lot of grievance tweeting.  I often don't put out a "you can engage him" vibe.  I do try repeatedly to show nuance.  I do try also to put out information without a heavy handed agenda.  Up to a point. 

And, yes, I think science denial overlaps with other things, especially since we are often in some sense talking about social science anyhow.  So, the book can have broad value.

Lessons in Chemistry

I have trouble finding fiction that I enjoy so Lessons in Chemistry is a particularly notable gem. One blurb compares it to The Queen's Gambit, which does have some similarities, including a smart, independent woman who survives hard times. The book also has an unpleasant children's home, if for the boy who grows up to be the love of her life.

The book takes place around 1960 and involves a woman chemist, who ultimately has a t.v. cooking show. She uses the show to teach chemistry and life lessons. The book also has various great characters, some whimsy (especially involving a dog), and a good amount of tragedy. In the end, however, the character has her happy ending.

I saw it in the library and thought it looked interesting. It was very good and was a quick reading 400 pages. The book is being made into a series for some platform. If done right, should be popular. First book for the author and hope she writes another in a few years.

Odds and Ends

The bar on entry to Canada for the unvaccinated will apply to playing the Toronto Blue Jays. And, the player won't get paid either. People managed, if they were open about it and took certain precautions, to be unvaxxed in the NFL. This might be interesting. ETA: Note that such rules also apply in New York City. Let's see for how long.

Mayor Eric Adams had some ups/downs, including various times when he came off as a clown for mouthing off. But, though I still don't think it was wrong to note his public violations of being a vegan, he did some good things promoting good nutrition. A sign of the complexity he brings. It also shows the opening for nudges in the right direction.

Good interview on Strict Scrutiny Podcast on the limits of textualism, including how Gorsuch misquoted the guest's own writings. She is right to call out the fake restraint. The "we are restrained unlike those liberals [at times, et. al.] who make shit up" is bullshit.

East Side Sushi

There are so many channels these days and I rarely find much that I really want to watch on them. At times, as seen by Split Second, there are some good finds. This was one of them, about a Mexican single mom who wants more out of life. She finds her bliss as a sushi chef.

The film has what you want for in a nice independent type of movie of this genre. There is enough "food porn," but also a good sense of character. I felt the lead was quite good, in a low key but well done performance. Multiple supporting actors did a good job, especially a supportive chef. And, there is a mix of trope and reality, to avoid spoilers.

Brittany Murphy aimed to be a ramen chef in The Ramen Girl, but that left something to be desired. Unpleasant lead. Meanwhile, King of the Hill revival coming. Basically tragic if you had Bobby (blah) but Luanne gone. Still, will see how her daughter is doing.

Food Police vs. Meat Eating Vegans

For years, I struggled with my weight and diabetes. But it wasn't my DNA, it was my dinner.

Healthy choices can save your life and @NYCHealthSystem's Lifestyle Medicine Clinics will help New Yorkers make those choices in every zip code. pic.twitter.com/msUv0bXcsj

— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) February 7, 2022

The overall sentiment put forth here by Mayor Adams is good. 

The complication was when it came out that Mayor Vegan (he has self-represented as one, which is his own choice) with a "plant based" diet was discovered to have a loose understanding of such terms.  He called out "food police" who was overly concerned about specifics.  

 Guy emphasized been vegan and so on himself.  He easily could have used more loose terminology.  I personally think ethically it is appropriate to not eat animals products, at least (see a book by Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb) those that result in harm/killing of animals with a certain degree of consciousness.  So, eating worms, for instance, might not be morally problematic, depending on environmental concerns and so on.

And, people sometimes have lapses.  A person is human and whatever their beliefs, they are not going to absolute about it in practice.  It is a stupid parlor game to pretend otherwise and/or pay gotcha games.  There are lines. So, for instance, if you are against abortion, having one because it will conflict with college plans is a tad bit hypocritical.

The term "vegan" suggests a certain degree of wholeheartedness. Maybe, if you have honey or something, you can quibble.  It is not the same thing as "vegetarian," which is more flexible -- people who are vegetarians sometimes eat dairy products (which he, showing his tendency to run off his mouth, compared to drugs).  Vegan?  That isn't what I would think of when people eat fish.  At least, it is not a "food police" moment. 

And, how timely with "vegan Fridays"* beginning in city public schools, there is a suggestion he might even go beyond the occasional fish.  He might occasionally have meat and chicken.  Again, fine, if we grant that no one is totally consistent.  Adams, however, suddenly is coy, while once being against (according to one article cited) "balanced moderation."  

(One wag suggested his shot at "food police" is a bit curious since Adams is usually pro-police, inclined to give them more power.)

Bottom line, it's fine to take a moderate path here. At least, on some level.  Don't go overboard, especially if it is a lapse or a limited thing that doesn't negate a general practice. It is another matter to take potshots like this when caught.  I fear, however, we will see him doing this regularly. 

One final thing. Someone I sometimes read for legal commentary noted he opposes adults to become vegetarians since they are likely to lapse.  Eat less meat instead. That's rather lame, even without noting many don't even think of chicken as meat. 

I myself became a vegetarian in my 20s.  I never completely became a vegan, though I rarely eat products with eggs and dairy these days [generally some dessert with them, not something like ice cream or cheese].  Cutting down is better than nothing, but my suggestion would be to try to go at it in installments. 

ETA:  Prof. Colb, a vegan, adds another supportive commentary in response to "fish-gate."  I understand the concern that people will miss the forest for the trees here, including that overall Mayor Adams has done a good thing to promote veganism.  

I would note even there that it is unclear to me how much criticism he is actually getting, "food police" comments and so forth.  It sounds to me that his own theatrics is half the story.  He made his veganism a story, people saw he went off the wagon, and called him on it.  So what?  That happens.   From my vantage point, it wasn't done to some silly degree.

Anyway, I still am annoyed to some degree (I want to underline that last part) at the response here.  First, she is "excited" about him being mayor because he is openly a vegan.  The fact he is suspect in certain ways (see, e.g., support of solitary confinement) over other options is not even mentioned.  I was not "excited" in that sense, in part since to be "vegan" is an overall life ethic ala Victoria Moran's book. 

And, it is not like "oh no one is perfect."  First, it isn't just fish, apparently, from some accounts.  Second, he is a public figure.  As a public advocate, he has additional responsibilities.  The response here is not surprising; it is plain unsurprising.  He messed up there.  I think people like Colb is giving him too much of a pass.

I don't want to belabor the issue too much, but a final thing is that Prof. Colb is a strong advocate.  Temple Grandin states she believes animals deserve respect and works toward making how they are killed less traumatic.  Colb in the past sneered at the value of this, arguing that it makes meat eaters just feel better.  But, as long as we have to deal with the reality of meat eating, such harm reduction MATTERS.

Now, a major advocate of veganism slips up in a public way and we don't even get a reminder of the importance of being careful as a public figure.  And, we do not even get a full accounting of what he actually did (granted the meat/chicken eating has received less play), as if he had fish once or twice.  It's a bit too generous.  

Oh well.

---

* Having one day a week without animal products seems to be a perfectly sane approach, especially since they have to include some dairy pursuant to federal rules or something.  

It's one day a week, and there are surely some non-animal product foods that most children like.  An easy approach would be usage of animal substitutes, such as a taco with meat substitute crumbles. 

Odds and Ends

Lani Guinier: The recently deceased [interesting word] civil rights scholar co-wrote this interesting takedown of Shelby v. Holder. Among things discussed is an argument (which I join) for a current general constitutional right to vote. Also, it cites a good Linda Greenhouse (who has ended her column) summary of the non-originalist Canada/UK constitutional model.

Vegan Fast Food: "Slow" food and so on is all good, but realistically, fast food and ready-made food is a standard supply. So, it's good that fast food is starting to have vegan options. Not quite as good that at KFC it is being cooked in common fryers, which can absorb animal flavorings. That would be a "no go" for some.

Jen Psaki's Back-Up: There were some rumors Psaki was going to move on this year. Appears to have been just that, so far. Principal Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre sometimes fills in. I'm sure she's great at her job and has a great story (lesbian and all that). But, she still seems a bit rough as compared to the more veteran Psaki.

Tampopo

This is a so-called "ramen western," a takeoff of the "spagetti westerns" made by Italian directors. It is a fun film about a trucker helping a widow create the perfect ramen restaraunt with other satiric elements involving food and Japanese society mixed in.

The movie is named after the widow, whose name literally means "dandelion." The actress is the wife of the director and she (with the hero) pops up in famous Taxing Woman film too. Various other people in the film are well known Japanese actors too; the guy years later also was in Brittany Murphy's The Ramen Girl, though her character is much more whiny than the woman here. The latest DVD has a whole disc of extras.