Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Week 3
NYG dominated, NYJ barely survived (and hurt too). Saints blew a 24-6 lead, losing 27-24. 46 pts scored in the the 4th in the Lions/Titans game. Lions got the onside with :18 left, scored but lost in OT. SF lost in an upset. Arizona ahead vs. Phils 17-0 mid-2Q.
From Blossom to Amy but Still Always Mayim
The the actress really sounds interesting. I'll take the vegan macaroni and cheese minus the Orthodox Judaism, but admire her effort.
Big Business Girl
I like Loretta Young, the old time movie actress, in various films, including Zoo in Budapest.
So, I decided to check out a few films of hers that are available at the local library. The first one is a 1931 "pre-Code" entry that also co-stars Ricardo Cortez as a heel and Joan Blondell as someone hired to stage your typical "adultery" (she gets the amusing final line). Frank Albertson plays the lovable goofball husband and his c.v. suggests he doesn't only play the rather weenie sort of role he played here. It is a wonder some flapper girl (they have been married a year, so maybe the 1920s term still works) with a cool nickname (Claire "Mac" McIntyre) hooked up with him.
The loser husband hurts the proceedings and the overall effort was something of a slog. Still, there are some interesting things down to the little bit of static from time to time that reminds that we are watching something over eighty years old. The guy at the library was surprised to see a videotape (now now -- they still have some at libraries), a change from when I went to another library and videotapes were the thing, no DVDs to be seen. Not quite what TCM or some such channel now sometimes has -- silent films -- but we are talking a bit of history here.
The film starts with our couple at a college party, the hip husband a jazzy musician doing the gig. There is a barrier where the couples steal a kiss out of the sight of the ancient chaperones and outside it is quite crowded with cars for make-out sessions when the two go for a break. I reckon this sort of thing and the ending where the husband (totally uncomfortable -- even when he is told to change into pajamas, he actually only puts them over his clothes) is tricked to a hotel to stage an adultery (again, a standard thing back in the day when "adultery" was the best way to get a "fault" divorce -- the author of the Lonely Doll series actually got caught into an attempt to fake one of these things) was risque stuff in 1931.
But, even as compared to some other films of the day (cf. the laxness of clothes in Tarzan and His Mate, a pretty good film btw, and this one, where even a shot of a shower and Young (who btw has a flapper figure here) in some of the least risque underclothes you will ever see), this seems pretty mild stuff. Joan Blondell is amusing in one of her earliest roles as the person hired at the end to stage the adultery (she is a pro). The rest of the film has the husband go to Paris for a gig, so Mac tries her hand at big business in NYC, already being a college gal. The playboy boss is attracted to her and hires her, so she pretends (though referencing a bf in Paris) to be unmarried. The hubby comes home early (couldn't bear being away, even with the hope of a good job) and complications ensue. Her going a business dinner the night he comes home does underline where her interests might lie! Young plays something of a feminist here, down to making sure her boss knows the meaning of "no."*
Leonard Maltin, the movie review who has a classic movie book out, gave it two stars out of four, which works. A stronger husband character would have helped. Young basically carries the load here, down to (without telling him) getting him a position via her ad agency contacts. As Maltin notes, she is cute as a button here, which she still was "good man, wrong party!" in Farmers Daughter in the 1940s. So, the atmosphere, shots of 1930s Manhattan (I assume they are second unit shots), the music and the rest along with her and Blondell (and for fans, perhaps Cortez, who surely more interesting than Johnny) won't mind much to spend seventy five or so minutes.
But, there are better 1930s films to watch, hopefully including the next one I have scheduled. That plus a latter thriller will be reviewed later on. One more interesting tidbit is Young taking a small plane home from a business trip in Detroit, which added to a (little touches like this does add to the film) race to the finish ending (she had to get back before the "adultery" was discovered, which also might ruin his new successful radio career). The apparent comfort level of her being doing something that only a few would have done at the time underlines the movie star nature of her character for the viewers.
For those who want to see another account of a 1930s woman dealing with big business, Skyscraper, later re-issued by Feminist Press, might be of interest. I enjoyed it. It also was made into a film. I see the library has it! Oh well.
---
* Loretta Young later had success with her television show, which wound up on a religiously themed channel recently because many of the plots had Christian themes. She herself was a well known Catholic; Marlo Thomas (!) talks about her godmother here. Like many a Catholic, she was far from perfect, but that only makes her more interesting really.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
U.S. names 55 Gitmo prisoners cleared to go
Various blogs I read or have read to my mind have sentiments that do not fairly provide Obama's position on "civil liberties" or more specifically (accurately) national security issues like detention and so forth. This doesn't mean I think the Administration is great on these issues, especially their push for immunity. But, I still don't like some of the imho slanted (often with a sneer) arguments. This includes some implication that makes Obama '08 come off as some civil libertarian. I didn't see it.
There has been to my understanding a move to make public the names of various people detained has been a concern of various litigation for some time and regardless for whatever reason:
And, the "conflict" at issue here seems to be still ongoing -- that is, the one where force was authorized in 2001 by Congress, Ron Paul voting for it. So, when people are concerned with "indefinite" detention, what does that necessarily mean? People are detained in armed conflicts authorized by Congress. The article references to roadblocks put forth by Congress as does another referenced in a tweet conversation where I also learned about the first article cited. A lot of blame can be spread around here, Obama's far from great policies at times to the left of his own party in Congress. The ACLU in that article is cited as putting blame on Congress but noting the buck eventually stops with Obama. The buck is shared.
It is noted that as compared to 750 detained by Bush that a single person was detained by Obama. No, his policy has been to kill them. It is not like the Bush Administration was concerned with trial as such -- GITMO was set up to avoid that sort of thing. The point of the detention was largely for interrogation. And, there was plenty of killing going on there too -- see Iraq, where Lancet estimated over 100K.* Criticism for Obama's drone policy (drones were around under Bush too) is valid in some ways, but Iraq and Afghanistan (Obama had his own "surge" there -- no surprise, since he campaigned on it) shows the alternative ways of fighting against the people and groups involved leave something to be desired.
But, obviously, especially given traditional moves to give executive broad discretion, at least unless you try to bring people into civilian courts or something, Obama has a big role to play here. Drone attacks are ultimately his responsibility. They are not "assassinations" unless they do not involve legitimate targets. OBL, for instance, is someone who can be killed during an armed conflict. Some civilian deaths could very well be allowable in the process and the way he was killed was particularly yes commendable on that front. One person kept on harping to me that one of his wives was shot in the leg. That is the best you got?
Targeting OBL was logical given his importance and similar actions would not be done, thus the use of drone attacks against others even in Pakistan. The use of drone attacks in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, a "hot war" zone I would think is hard to see as something illegal. If we can send troops in, we can bomb people, including more precision bombing than the sort used during WWII. I don't like it as policy and safeguards might be lacking (human rights officials focus on lack of proper oversight), but that is a lesser thing. And, in other areas, like Yemen, it would be much harder to send in ground troops.
If we don't like using armed conflict against Al Qaeda, perhaps revoke the authorization. I personally don't think as a whole the drone strategy was helpful though who knows as to specific cases. It seems a sort of whack a mole strategy with possible blowback. And, increasing the fighting in Afghanistan (Maddow reported the troop levels have been cut back) also doesn't appear to have been advisable. Some involvement with other countries in the Libya civil war was at best questionable and should have required Congress involvement though they themselves play a large part in delegating their powers there, if they were violated.
But, sadly, this is the mainstream position in D.C. these days. Just targeting Obama or wondering "what happened to St. Obama who promised a rose garden" is stupid, especially since he never was really saintly and never promised (all such promises should be taken with a grain of salt anyhow) a rose garden. And, to the degree he did promise stuff, he did deliver some and Congress blocked him in key ways from doing more. Again, the net result is some stuff I don't like, but I'm not going to join with the bludgeon approach some prefer either.
Much props though for all those who stick their necks out and put the Administration and others to the test. A long lonely fight.
---
* [Update]: The perspective of wrong, so to speak, is underlined by a comment made on an interesting Chris Hayes discussion on Sunday that reminded there is a war in Pakistan, against Pakistan. The evidence? Well, four thousand people were killed since 2006 (note date). This is serious business, but this is the heart of Al Qaida territory and such, and compare this to the death toll in Iraq. No, I won't forget the difference. Even Bush at one point, not in January 2009 at that, spoke about 30K dead.
To blithely speak of Obama in Glenn Greenwald tones like nothing has changed is aggravating, especially since, let me repeat, I am not a big fan of this approach at all. Big picture, we can see a united approach, but that sort of thing also misleads, disrespects the actual people harmed.
There has been to my understanding a move to make public the names of various people detained has been a concern of various litigation for some time and regardless for whatever reason:
The U.S. Government has for the first time issued a public list of Guantanamo prisoners cleared for release or transfer, but who remain at the island prison because of difficulties finding a country willing to take them or because of concerns about sending them to their home countries.The list shows that 55 (maybe more since some names were left out because of lack of judicial clearance) of 167 still in Gitmo are there because of that reason, Yemen a primary concern given there is no guarantee according to the Administration that people won't just go back to fighting given the state of the country at this time. Sixty eight have been sent back to their countries or some third nation, so the call for resettlement by the ACLU does not mean efforts have not been made.
“Congress has made it impossible for Obama to close Guantanamo,” says Larry Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan. ”They made it very difficult for him to try people in civilian court. That has really made it very tough for him to do the things that he would like to do.”
And, the "conflict" at issue here seems to be still ongoing -- that is, the one where force was authorized in 2001 by Congress, Ron Paul voting for it. So, when people are concerned with "indefinite" detention, what does that necessarily mean? People are detained in armed conflicts authorized by Congress. The article references to roadblocks put forth by Congress as does another referenced in a tweet conversation where I also learned about the first article cited. A lot of blame can be spread around here, Obama's far from great policies at times to the left of his own party in Congress. The ACLU in that article is cited as putting blame on Congress but noting the buck eventually stops with Obama. The buck is shared.
It is noted that as compared to 750 detained by Bush that a single person was detained by Obama. No, his policy has been to kill them. It is not like the Bush Administration was concerned with trial as such -- GITMO was set up to avoid that sort of thing. The point of the detention was largely for interrogation. And, there was plenty of killing going on there too -- see Iraq, where Lancet estimated over 100K.* Criticism for Obama's drone policy (drones were around under Bush too) is valid in some ways, but Iraq and Afghanistan (Obama had his own "surge" there -- no surprise, since he campaigned on it) shows the alternative ways of fighting against the people and groups involved leave something to be desired.
For instance, the operation that targeted Osama bin Laden probably involved "undue risk" to the troops involved, especially when compared with dropping a huge bomb on the house he was living in. The administration seems to be saying it needn't risk an on-the-ground operation when a drone strike will do the trick. (Of course, bombing bin Laden's house would have likely caused civilian casualties, including those of children. )The problem here is not ultimately Obama in an important sense because the Constitution doesn't just put everything in his hands. Congress authorized military force in 2001 against Al Qaida related groups and if Congress wants, it can declare that conflict over and not authorize funding. Congress blocked attempts to bring KSM to trial in civilian court; is Obama supposed to go all unilateral and go over its head? Congress blocked attempts to move people from the middle of nowhere to domestic detention where lawyers and others have easier access and perhaps (being on domestic soil) a clearer case in court (GITMO falls under the Insular Cases type "due process semi-lite" regime).
But, obviously, especially given traditional moves to give executive broad discretion, at least unless you try to bring people into civilian courts or something, Obama has a big role to play here. Drone attacks are ultimately his responsibility. They are not "assassinations" unless they do not involve legitimate targets. OBL, for instance, is someone who can be killed during an armed conflict. Some civilian deaths could very well be allowable in the process and the way he was killed was particularly yes commendable on that front. One person kept on harping to me that one of his wives was shot in the leg. That is the best you got?
Targeting OBL was logical given his importance and similar actions would not be done, thus the use of drone attacks against others even in Pakistan. The use of drone attacks in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, a "hot war" zone I would think is hard to see as something illegal. If we can send troops in, we can bomb people, including more precision bombing than the sort used during WWII. I don't like it as policy and safeguards might be lacking (human rights officials focus on lack of proper oversight), but that is a lesser thing. And, in other areas, like Yemen, it would be much harder to send in ground troops.
If we don't like using armed conflict against Al Qaeda, perhaps revoke the authorization. I personally don't think as a whole the drone strategy was helpful though who knows as to specific cases. It seems a sort of whack a mole strategy with possible blowback. And, increasing the fighting in Afghanistan (Maddow reported the troop levels have been cut back) also doesn't appear to have been advisable. Some involvement with other countries in the Libya civil war was at best questionable and should have required Congress involvement though they themselves play a large part in delegating their powers there, if they were violated.
But, sadly, this is the mainstream position in D.C. these days. Just targeting Obama or wondering "what happened to St. Obama who promised a rose garden" is stupid, especially since he never was really saintly and never promised (all such promises should be taken with a grain of salt anyhow) a rose garden. And, to the degree he did promise stuff, he did deliver some and Congress blocked him in key ways from doing more. Again, the net result is some stuff I don't like, but I'm not going to join with the bludgeon approach some prefer either.
Much props though for all those who stick their necks out and put the Administration and others to the test. A long lonely fight.
---
* [Update]: The perspective of wrong, so to speak, is underlined by a comment made on an interesting Chris Hayes discussion on Sunday that reminded there is a war in Pakistan, against Pakistan. The evidence? Well, four thousand people were killed since 2006 (note date). This is serious business, but this is the heart of Al Qaida territory and such, and compare this to the death toll in Iraq. No, I won't forget the difference. Even Bush at one point, not in January 2009 at that, spoke about 30K dead.
To blithely speak of Obama in Glenn Greenwald tones like nothing has changed is aggravating, especially since, let me repeat, I am not a big fan of this approach at all. Big picture, we can see a united approach, but that sort of thing also misleads, disrespects the actual people harmed.
Labels:
border issues,
Congress,
executive power,
Gitmo,
habeas,
Obama,
peace
Rev. Joe (Amish Hate Crime Conviction)
Good appeal. Meanwhile, the Amish beard incident might be a "hate crime," but it shouldn't be a federal prosecution.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Only 1-0 (except First and Last Innings)
"Guys are upset, guys are embarrassed and we should be, because we have been very, very bad in the second half," David Wright said.
The 16-1 whipping (three hits) was only atypical as to scope. The lack of hitting, not winning at home and end result is sadly typical.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Don't You Dare Read This, Mrs. Dunphrey
A good novel can be enjoyed by those it might not be originally geared for. Walter Scott was a fan of Jane Austen, including writing an early review of the novel, and I doubt he was her intended audience. A journal entry written about a decade after she died reflects his sentiment:
The idea (see also, the link) is that a high school student is writing journal entries for English and the teacher allows people to mark the entries as private and that will count as a submission. The point being that the student is still writing and all so just what is being written is not necessarily important. This provides the student here the chance to write various private things about her life, the journal entries being chapters of the book, so to speak. Early on, she forgets to mark the entry private and the teacher comments on her writing ability and gives words of support regarding the personal issue referenced. This upsets the student, partially since she (with reason) does not trust people such as peer counselors and the like to be much help. Also, general teen privacy concerns.
The teacher has to thread a fine line here. Just what are their responsibilities? They are expected in some degree to respond to student needs, at times required to do so (such as when a clear case of abuse seems apparent), but their general role is after all to be an educator, not a social worker. But, they still are an important figure in the lives of the student, someone who sees them daily and has some sort of personal relationship with them, at times seeing a side of them (including in their writing) that others might not. The students' lives also of course affect their education, so cannot be totally avoided on that level. Also, the school does have some role to play here, including a means to channel things in the students' lives in various ways -- such as sports, clubs or (as here) writing. All the same, the teacher realizes his/her limitations and it often is best to not try to be "super-teacher," which might be counterproductive in the end even for the best of them.
Of course, teachers know this sort of thing and have to weigh all sort of things while doing their jobs. Such is the task of many professionals, particularly those particularly important to us. But, the book is not about teachers, or the trouble parents (including the mother) at issue here, though as with Forever Changes or some Disney channel, adult readers like me might sympathize a bit more with adult characters than some, but Tish, a troubled 15/16 year-old. The book realistically [the acknowledgements alludes to real life people who told the author their stories] deals with her rising troubled situation in the voice of her journal entries, a lot of ground covered in only a bit over one hundred pages (about same length as First Time, which in part deals with themes more harshly applied in other Tilly works).
I think teens should like it too, but hey, what do I know?!
Also read again, and for the third time at least, Miss Austen’s very finely written novel of Pride and Prejudice. That young lady had a talent for describing the involvements and feelings and characters of ordinary life, which is to me the most wonderful I ever met with. The Big Bow-wow strain I can do myself like any now going; but the exquisite touch, which renders ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting, from the truth of the description and the sentiment, is denied to me. What a pity such a gifted creature died so early!Yes, particularly since her family -- down to her mom and sister -- lived much longer lives. The theme can apply to teen literature, which I at times appreciate, such as the Forever Changes novel recently referenced. Hunger Games is after all ultimately a novel geared to teens, but not just liked by them. Margaret Peterson Haddix also is top teen author whose works can be appreciated by authors, including The Always War (involving a usual theme of hers, sci fi) and the book I just read, Don't You Dare Read This, Mrs. Dunphrey, labelled also ideal for "reluctant readers." Such a label was also supplied to First Time, written by Bomb Girls contributor, Meg Tilly. To cite another short work recently read.
The idea (see also, the link) is that a high school student is writing journal entries for English and the teacher allows people to mark the entries as private and that will count as a submission. The point being that the student is still writing and all so just what is being written is not necessarily important. This provides the student here the chance to write various private things about her life, the journal entries being chapters of the book, so to speak. Early on, she forgets to mark the entry private and the teacher comments on her writing ability and gives words of support regarding the personal issue referenced. This upsets the student, partially since she (with reason) does not trust people such as peer counselors and the like to be much help. Also, general teen privacy concerns.
The teacher has to thread a fine line here. Just what are their responsibilities? They are expected in some degree to respond to student needs, at times required to do so (such as when a clear case of abuse seems apparent), but their general role is after all to be an educator, not a social worker. But, they still are an important figure in the lives of the student, someone who sees them daily and has some sort of personal relationship with them, at times seeing a side of them (including in their writing) that others might not. The students' lives also of course affect their education, so cannot be totally avoided on that level. Also, the school does have some role to play here, including a means to channel things in the students' lives in various ways -- such as sports, clubs or (as here) writing. All the same, the teacher realizes his/her limitations and it often is best to not try to be "super-teacher," which might be counterproductive in the end even for the best of them.
Of course, teachers know this sort of thing and have to weigh all sort of things while doing their jobs. Such is the task of many professionals, particularly those particularly important to us. But, the book is not about teachers, or the trouble parents (including the mother) at issue here, though as with Forever Changes or some Disney channel, adult readers like me might sympathize a bit more with adult characters than some, but Tish, a troubled 15/16 year-old. The book realistically [the acknowledgements alludes to real life people who told the author their stories] deals with her rising troubled situation in the voice of her journal entries, a lot of ground covered in only a bit over one hundred pages (about same length as First Time, which in part deals with themes more harshly applied in other Tilly works).
I think teens should like it too, but hey, what do I know?!
Souter and Shades of Gray (Grey)
A couple days ago, I noted Constitution Day (9/17) was also Justice Souter's birthday and included some stuff he said -- private guy, but he has a few appearances people can access and help understand why so many (down to Justice Stevens, who cited him as the person on the Court that he trusted the most though he is like twenty years older than Souter) appreciate him. Souter is the one you can trust to be rational. Such is not always a guarantee these days, simple rationality, not when people lash out at people's fathers for defending their daughter.
Souter noted that the Constitution (the same can be said about other things) has many components that are not meant to be read literally, in part because we have to balance various things (equality v. free speech, etc.) in the process. I once noted that I was loathe to say that "freedom of speech" is this term of art, that (except for limited cases) it is in effect absolute, but honestly, in the real world, this is right. "Freedom" of speech is something of a term of art though this leads people to make exceptions for obscenity or some such thing, I am off the bus.
So, the rub is to determine the principles -- to reference a new book by Prof. Amar that I might read -- "unwritten" ones often times -- to follow when applying the text. Also, Souter argued (perhaps more accurate to say than "noting" something that one might dispute) applying the Constitution is a matter of doing so in one's own time period. Plessy, e.g., looks better if we put it in the context of 1896. We can simply, on some "law in an ether" (my metaphor) way, pretend that the ruling was simply wrong from the day it was written, that Brown pussyfooted there.
Or, perhaps, more realistically -- as he said -- consider that the rule set forth there was pretty good as compared to what that generation saw in their own lifetimes. All things considered, it was pretty "equal" for the day. Reminds me of someone who kept on asking me (on Slate fray) when (perhaps 9 A.M. some Tuesday ala the creation of the world?) I thought the death penalty became unconstitutional, like constitutional law worked that way. Or, someone today who asked "who" determined what constitutional law meant (I cited public reactions, political processes and judicial review), when it simply is one big messy thing that -- like life -- somehow moves along. We can point to some concrete things regarding the process, but in some basic sense, it is pretty messy and indeterminate.
Souter is not free from doing things that you wouldn't expect from a practical guy from Weare. He is very big on civics education, just like Justice O'Connor, and at times acts like we are so much worse these days. Heh. Really -- I listen at times to what my mom was taught and it is not like it was some ideal time period. If anything, I think there might be some more effort these days in various places though maybe less in other places. Civics is important, but like history and other good stuff, there was always some sizable group, too big probably, uneducated about it.
But, I like Souter and his overall view of things, even if I might be more liberal or libertarian than him on certain subjects. Baby Joe was not that gung ho about him replacing Brennan, but heck, look who picked him! Turned out to be a good pick as hopefully his own replacement, who I thought was a good one upfront, Sotomayor will be. I didn't like various things about Bush41, after all, he thought now typical Republican scuminess was okay at election time, but I could live with the guy. I really don't think the same with some of the people in his party these days. Sheesh. Romney almost makes Bush look good.
One more thing, a bit more personal philosophy. I think part of civics education should be learning how to argue and understand arguments. This is something of a hobbyhorse of mine. Let's take an argument that Stevens trumped Scalia in Heller, which itself (so the argument was) a case of gun rights activists convincing the USSC to change the law.* Reply: well, the public really thought there was a modified right to own guns anyways. Rejoinder: yeah, but (dubious examples) the public is stupid. The dubious examples are bad enough, but this changing the subject is really annoying. It is like someone with a short attention span or something who can't focus on what the point is.
Imagine going further and trying to address how such and such a person is wrong on a narrow point, while not trying to start a debate over the major point every time something comes up. For instance, not try to debate the death penalty writ large every time some specific case is involved or try not to dismiss the other side as morons or something. Yeah, I know, I'm not a saint in this regard, but I feel myself trying harder than some, and it is real annoying at some blogs, including those whose contributors I overall respect and/or agree with, with no restraint.
Life is complicated. There is a lot of nuance. You can be for a side -- Mets fan who will vote Obama here -- but at some point, isn't it not only more accurate but more enjoyable to consider the shades of gray?** Fifty shades or less, whatever -- no, didn't read the book. Hear it's stupid.
---
* Comments on blogs and in person also have a lot of baggage to them and it is a matter of picking your target. Take this example, which is from a blog entry elsewhere. I personally think Stevens did a shoddy job in Heller, but it might work best just to point out one thing -- let's say my opinion that the result is in effect a reflection of what the majority supports (shades of Casey / abortion in that respect) and not just a "gun rights activist" reading. An opinion that goes out of its way to set forth acceptable gun regulations seems to be not quite that anyhow.
** Or, "grey." Do at times feel like using that form. British of me.
Souter noted that the Constitution (the same can be said about other things) has many components that are not meant to be read literally, in part because we have to balance various things (equality v. free speech, etc.) in the process. I once noted that I was loathe to say that "freedom of speech" is this term of art, that (except for limited cases) it is in effect absolute, but honestly, in the real world, this is right. "Freedom" of speech is something of a term of art though this leads people to make exceptions for obscenity or some such thing, I am off the bus.
So, the rub is to determine the principles -- to reference a new book by Prof. Amar that I might read -- "unwritten" ones often times -- to follow when applying the text. Also, Souter argued (perhaps more accurate to say than "noting" something that one might dispute) applying the Constitution is a matter of doing so in one's own time period. Plessy, e.g., looks better if we put it in the context of 1896. We can simply, on some "law in an ether" (my metaphor) way, pretend that the ruling was simply wrong from the day it was written, that Brown pussyfooted there.
Or, perhaps, more realistically -- as he said -- consider that the rule set forth there was pretty good as compared to what that generation saw in their own lifetimes. All things considered, it was pretty "equal" for the day. Reminds me of someone who kept on asking me (on Slate fray) when (perhaps 9 A.M. some Tuesday ala the creation of the world?) I thought the death penalty became unconstitutional, like constitutional law worked that way. Or, someone today who asked "who" determined what constitutional law meant (I cited public reactions, political processes and judicial review), when it simply is one big messy thing that -- like life -- somehow moves along. We can point to some concrete things regarding the process, but in some basic sense, it is pretty messy and indeterminate.
Souter is not free from doing things that you wouldn't expect from a practical guy from Weare. He is very big on civics education, just like Justice O'Connor, and at times acts like we are so much worse these days. Heh. Really -- I listen at times to what my mom was taught and it is not like it was some ideal time period. If anything, I think there might be some more effort these days in various places though maybe less in other places. Civics is important, but like history and other good stuff, there was always some sizable group, too big probably, uneducated about it.
But, I like Souter and his overall view of things, even if I might be more liberal or libertarian than him on certain subjects. Baby Joe was not that gung ho about him replacing Brennan, but heck, look who picked him! Turned out to be a good pick as hopefully his own replacement, who I thought was a good one upfront, Sotomayor will be. I didn't like various things about Bush41, after all, he thought now typical Republican scuminess was okay at election time, but I could live with the guy. I really don't think the same with some of the people in his party these days. Sheesh. Romney almost makes Bush look good.
One more thing, a bit more personal philosophy. I think part of civics education should be learning how to argue and understand arguments. This is something of a hobbyhorse of mine. Let's take an argument that Stevens trumped Scalia in Heller, which itself (so the argument was) a case of gun rights activists convincing the USSC to change the law.* Reply: well, the public really thought there was a modified right to own guns anyways. Rejoinder: yeah, but (dubious examples) the public is stupid. The dubious examples are bad enough, but this changing the subject is really annoying. It is like someone with a short attention span or something who can't focus on what the point is.
Imagine going further and trying to address how such and such a person is wrong on a narrow point, while not trying to start a debate over the major point every time something comes up. For instance, not try to debate the death penalty writ large every time some specific case is involved or try not to dismiss the other side as morons or something. Yeah, I know, I'm not a saint in this regard, but I feel myself trying harder than some, and it is real annoying at some blogs, including those whose contributors I overall respect and/or agree with, with no restraint.
Life is complicated. There is a lot of nuance. You can be for a side -- Mets fan who will vote Obama here -- but at some point, isn't it not only more accurate but more enjoyable to consider the shades of gray?** Fifty shades or less, whatever -- no, didn't read the book. Hear it's stupid.
---
* Comments on blogs and in person also have a lot of baggage to them and it is a matter of picking your target. Take this example, which is from a blog entry elsewhere. I personally think Stevens did a shoddy job in Heller, but it might work best just to point out one thing -- let's say my opinion that the result is in effect a reflection of what the majority supports (shades of Casey / abortion in that respect) and not just a "gun rights activist" reading. An opinion that goes out of its way to set forth acceptable gun regulations seems to be not quite that anyhow.
** Or, "grey." Do at times feel like using that form. British of me.
House Races
This is good and if Romney hurts there (very well might), all the better. As in the past decade or so, level of control matters, so it is all very complicated, if at times less satisfying. This "united Democratic Party" is interesting though. What is this creature?
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Legalize This! The case for decriminalizing drugs
This philosophical account limits itself to the injustice (some usual cost/benefit stuff, but then goes back to justice) of criminalizing drug use. That is, not the "right" to use or all nuances (e.g., denial of aid for use). A bit incomplete, but overall, lot packed in the space. {expanded post}
The book says the "best" case is that the state does not have an adequate just reason, on grounds of personal responsibility, to do the "worst" thing it can do -- lock someone up. I think undersells thing a tad. We can consider some mild punishment, such as a criminal fine or short prison sentence, that is arguably not as bad as other things put in a different category (not supported) such as denial of a job or educational benefit long term because of drug use. This is "punitive" enough for me.
Anyway, the "justice" broadly refers to rights (from unjust detention) but not a right to use drugs per se, special cases such as religious use or euthanasia particularly not covered.* Kent v. Dulles cited this principle: "outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Particularly given how legal drugs and practices work out, the book shows how health, crime control and protection of children doesn't justify criminalization while the failed attempt causes its own problems, including in the areas it supposedly is there to address (e.g., health). A lot wrong here.
The dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick compared certain sexual practices to "possession in the home of drugs, firearms, or stolen goods," but "victimless" or not, illicit drug possession is not dangerous enough to warrant the current legal regime. The book, however, might have undersold the "morals" argument, which it basically saw inconsistently applied (cf. alcohol use), applied in an overinclusive matter (only a limited number of drug users are the "real" problem here) or based on non-secular grounds (once a secular veneer is removed) that are illegitimate for our system of government. The matter brings to mind this colloquy during the Lawrence v. Texas orals:
Again, I'm not sure if the book fully examined how this can be seen as harmful to society, especially if we put aside some right to autonomy, even if many might feel it unduly paternalistic. We generally expect individuals in society to provide some minimum things for the good of all and some basic ability to be a thinking and productive member would be one such thing. Spoken vaguely like that, it might work, but even if we accept that (some won't), criminalizing (some) drug use is a piss poor way of advancement.
Anyway, as I noted in the beginning, this book provides a lot of material in its under 200 page package. The aim is a bit more narrow than some might like (the injustice of criminalization of drug use) but it covers most of the bases and does so with an honest hesitance to be sure of itself. Good thing, therefore, that the burden of proof is to those with the keys to the jail. The book is the work of a philosopher, but the regular reader should be able to enjoy it as a whole. Only a tad academic in flavor.
---
* The book does respect freedom of choice over means of recreation and civil liberty concerns are weighed in the costs section ("justice" is the "best," not the "only" argument involved).
Still, rights is a major issue here, making the criminalization harder to justify. If you are going to talk about recreation as a benefit of drugs, why stop there? A footnote in Stanley v. Georgia notwithstanding, e.g., drug use (surely at the time -- the 1960s) has First Amendment connotations -- consciousness, personal statement / protest, social lubricant and so forth. It also is basically a private matter, a matter of personal privacy.
In fact, in a brief article, Justice Tom Clark in the early 1970s suggested the possession of certain types of drugs, such as marijuana, might fall under the protections of Griswold v. Connecticut. Clark earlier noted choice of diet was a matter of personal privacy. Why not certain drug choices?
The book says the "best" case is that the state does not have an adequate just reason, on grounds of personal responsibility, to do the "worst" thing it can do -- lock someone up. I think undersells thing a tad. We can consider some mild punishment, such as a criminal fine or short prison sentence, that is arguably not as bad as other things put in a different category (not supported) such as denial of a job or educational benefit long term because of drug use. This is "punitive" enough for me.
Anyway, the "justice" broadly refers to rights (from unjust detention) but not a right to use drugs per se, special cases such as religious use or euthanasia particularly not covered.* Kent v. Dulles cited this principle: "outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Particularly given how legal drugs and practices work out, the book shows how health, crime control and protection of children doesn't justify criminalization while the failed attempt causes its own problems, including in the areas it supposedly is there to address (e.g., health). A lot wrong here.
The dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick compared certain sexual practices to "possession in the home of drugs, firearms, or stolen goods," but "victimless" or not, illicit drug possession is not dangerous enough to warrant the current legal regime. The book, however, might have undersold the "morals" argument, which it basically saw inconsistently applied (cf. alcohol use), applied in an overinclusive matter (only a limited number of drug users are the "real" problem here) or based on non-secular grounds (once a secular veneer is removed) that are illegitimate for our system of government. The matter brings to mind this colloquy during the Lawrence v. Texas orals:
Mr. Rosenthal: Well, part of the... part of the rationale for the law is to discourage similar conduct, that is, to discourage people who may be in jail together or want to experiment from doing the same kind of thing and I think... and I think that the State can do that.Ronald Dworkin in Freedom's Law also briefly references the matter in an endnote, discussing how the state encourages, including by criminal prosecution (apparently legitimately to some extent), the populace to "make something of their lives" and drug use involves "wasting" one's life to such an extent that it could be deterred. This would also touch upon an area the book totally avoided -- euthansia -- suicide laws also guarding against total "deterioration of the body" to the extent of ending one's life. But, the book still sees an arguably inadequate advancement of a virtuous life not "wrongful" to the degree that warrants imprisonment.
People can harm themselves and still be... and still have it be against the law.
But they can take drugs and do that.
Justice Souter: Well, do you point to a kind of harm here to an individual or to the individual's partner, which is comparable to the harm that results from the... the harm to the deterioration of the body and the mind from drug-taking?
I mean, I don't see the parallel between the two situations.
Again, I'm not sure if the book fully examined how this can be seen as harmful to society, especially if we put aside some right to autonomy, even if many might feel it unduly paternalistic. We generally expect individuals in society to provide some minimum things for the good of all and some basic ability to be a thinking and productive member would be one such thing. Spoken vaguely like that, it might work, but even if we accept that (some won't), criminalizing (some) drug use is a piss poor way of advancement.
Anyway, as I noted in the beginning, this book provides a lot of material in its under 200 page package. The aim is a bit more narrow than some might like (the injustice of criminalization of drug use) but it covers most of the bases and does so with an honest hesitance to be sure of itself. Good thing, therefore, that the burden of proof is to those with the keys to the jail. The book is the work of a philosopher, but the regular reader should be able to enjoy it as a whole. Only a tad academic in flavor.
---
* The book does respect freedom of choice over means of recreation and civil liberty concerns are weighed in the costs section ("justice" is the "best," not the "only" argument involved).
Still, rights is a major issue here, making the criminalization harder to justify. If you are going to talk about recreation as a benefit of drugs, why stop there? A footnote in Stanley v. Georgia notwithstanding, e.g., drug use (surely at the time -- the 1960s) has First Amendment connotations -- consciousness, personal statement / protest, social lubricant and so forth. It also is basically a private matter, a matter of personal privacy.
In fact, in a brief article, Justice Tom Clark in the early 1970s suggested the possession of certain types of drugs, such as marijuana, might fall under the protections of Griswold v. Connecticut. Clark earlier noted choice of diet was a matter of personal privacy. Why not certain drug choices?
Seventh Heaven
I caught this last night. Best pre-twins (& pick that guest star!), but would have liked it better if they risked a bit more complication, like not having the dad so perfect. Guy schemes to teach even as his daughter is in surgery. Serious stuff covered here, but needed a bit more of an edge at times. Like make him wrong some time!
More SSM Stupidity
The DPC does not have the "same" meaning as the EPC though the latter affected the reach of the former. But, seriously, "Biblical definition" of marriage?! What like divorce laws? Of course, many Jews and Christians think SSM works there too. Putting aside the need for secular laws. Sadly, this is seen as serious argument.
Tu TV
Some could have saw Os win again in extras (two in ninth, two in eighteenth) but over here, Bomb Girls was decent & Matt Perry's show tedious. Colbert had a wicked take down on Romney's latest gaffe fest. Skipped Obama on Dave, except for a Hanna Montana reference.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Some Optimism
See also. Consider our own historical journey. Don't want some voices here to be seen as "the" voice of America either.
Reruns
The SSM debate over SCOTUSBlog has a sort of "summer rerun" quality, including the fictional arguments about what Baker ruled, what marriage was traditionally "about" and how such rules do "nothing" to affect the "personal liberty" of same sex couples.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Forever Changes
Brendan Halpin has written books of various genres including adult novels like I Can See Clearly Now, which tells the story of the 1970s via a team at a Schoolhouse Rock-like show. Forever Changes is (YA) a touching story of a senior (19) with a fatal disease.
Detroit Snoozefest
Tedious Sunday Night game. Detroit kept it close against an admittedly tough opponent until not being able (as we were promised is a norm) stop them late on third and long. Finally scored a TD with ninety seconds left. Down by eight, the onside kick was a lost cause.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
(cont.)
Dallas was whipped by Seattle and the Rams impressively came back against the boy wonder from WA, while the Jets lost the lead late in the 1H; never got it back. Miami embarrassed Oakland, but the Eagles held on late, so is 2-0. Two prime time games left.
Week 2
Saints and NE (given a gift turnover at end but missed a 42 yd FG) were upset & the NYG looked like they might, but a 25 point 4Q (and a near miss incomplete near the end) helped put a stop to it. Eagles have one pt lead at moment. Seattle up by 10 early against Dallas.
"You're Standing on My Neck"
Rev. Joe: Happy New Year
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Lonely Doll
A few days ago, I mentioned a biography of Dare Wright, who is best known from her children's books from the late 1950s until around 1980, particularly her "lonely doll" series. She was quite talented as a photographer, artistic talent (as well as less ideal psychological issues) natural being she was a daughter of a portrait painter. The bio is an impressive bit of research, involving a lot of interviews with people who knew Dare Wright, though the net effect is somewhat depressing.
The psychological issues are suggested by a NYT article written a few years after the biography -- "The Unsettling Stories of Two Lonely Dolls." Also, the doll herself, Dare's own as a child, was named "Edith," which was her mother's name. The article notes how the books (she also wrote a few others with doll themes and some focusing on animals) have a strong affect on readers:
I don't know -- seems a bit of transference there -- but there does seem to be a powerful emotional undercurrent -- Edith is very worried that her being bad will mean she will be alone again though after she apologizes, all is forgiven. The link suggests she even liked the spanking a bit, perhaps since it showed someone cared for her enough to punish her for being bad (a reader again can suggest transference was involved here). This brings up real concerns of children that if they are bad, their parents won't love them any more or even that they will be alone. Dare Wright's own parents divorced at an early age, her older brother being taken away; they only saw each other years later. Children so also sometimes are quite lonely and a lonely doll can be relatable.
I found a Dare Wright book at the library -- a few are available, but only one for borrowing. It is unfortunate (another library has her first book for borrowing -- might be able to get it eventually) if the one book (a holiday special) is anything to judge. It is a wonderful book, very cute with a charming message about homemade gifts. The wonder really is that book, like all her books, are actually photographs of an actual doll and bears (she eventually found copies as stand-ins, but I think much of this involved just the originals) having various adventures. Since this is in effect what many little girls do with their own dolls, along with the clear skill of the whole thing, one can start to understand the draw.
Really, I found the whole affair impressive and just too cute. I just might try to find a copy for a Christmas present and do want to check out other books by the author. Jean Nathan, the author of the bio, got the idea when she had a sudden image of the cover of the first book, which she had read as a child. She eventually found the author, then in a long term care facility (her life after the final book was written was sad and it was really depressing to read about) and in fact wrote her obit a few years later. This started in the 1990s -- these days, it is not so hard to find her books, a few of them currently pretty cheap on Amazon.
One more thing. The NYT article notes some like the books because Edith always has the same expression (she is after all a doll, literally) and unlike some more cartoonish children books, this brings a sense of realism and allows readers to transfer their own meanings to the doll. Yes. The thing is that when I was reading the book, it doesn't quite seem like she just had one expression. This underlines the skill of Dare Wright, who (using simple materials, not some expensive camera work or anything) also was known to make clothes and decorate her apartment in creative ways. She did not like to talk much about her "process" in interviews or in general, according to the biography, being shy. It's a shame, since getting more insight about her thought processes would be interesting.
---
* Dare obtained the bears when her brother bought one for her and the son of a friend. She started photographing the three before the big one was given to the child, but afterwards felt incomplete without the whole "family" being together. She was going to borrow the big bear, but her brother said that one does not borrow bears, so he bought her one instead. Jean Nathan suggests in effect we have Dare as a child (Edith), her brother as a boy (who left her life at an early age) and a father figure (basically never around, even when her parents were married).
The psychological issues are suggested by a NYT article written a few years after the biography -- "The Unsettling Stories of Two Lonely Dolls." Also, the doll herself, Dare's own as a child, was named "Edith," which was her mother's name. The article notes how the books (she also wrote a few others with doll themes and some focusing on animals) have a strong affect on readers:
A common occurrence in her store, she said, is that a mother will show ''instant recognition'' upon spotting the book and want to buy it for her daughter. ''Then they'll start to read it, and you can just see their faces when they come to the spanking. Then it's like, 'Maybe I won't buy it for my daughter.' '' But, she said, those women may buy it for themselves. ''It's one of the books that has a strong, strong pull,'' she said.The first book in the series suggests the concern. We have Edith, who is all alone in a big house, quite lonely. Where are her parents? Eventually, she gains a family -- Mr. Bear and Little Bear* (boy bear; again, no mother figure) -- and is promised they would not go away. When Mr. Bear is away, she and Little Bear play dress up, including with makeup, though no female presence is apparent. They make and mess and (show of panties), she gets a spanking. This upsets some people though in the 1950s, and even today, being spanked is not really atypical. The spanking itself isn't the issue though -- looking through comments on Amazon, e.g., some see a certain strange dynamic going on of dominance and sexuality.
I don't know -- seems a bit of transference there -- but there does seem to be a powerful emotional undercurrent -- Edith is very worried that her being bad will mean she will be alone again though after she apologizes, all is forgiven. The link suggests she even liked the spanking a bit, perhaps since it showed someone cared for her enough to punish her for being bad (a reader again can suggest transference was involved here). This brings up real concerns of children that if they are bad, their parents won't love them any more or even that they will be alone. Dare Wright's own parents divorced at an early age, her older brother being taken away; they only saw each other years later. Children so also sometimes are quite lonely and a lonely doll can be relatable.
I found a Dare Wright book at the library -- a few are available, but only one for borrowing. It is unfortunate (another library has her first book for borrowing -- might be able to get it eventually) if the one book (a holiday special) is anything to judge. It is a wonderful book, very cute with a charming message about homemade gifts. The wonder really is that book, like all her books, are actually photographs of an actual doll and bears (she eventually found copies as stand-ins, but I think much of this involved just the originals) having various adventures. Since this is in effect what many little girls do with their own dolls, along with the clear skill of the whole thing, one can start to understand the draw.
Really, I found the whole affair impressive and just too cute. I just might try to find a copy for a Christmas present and do want to check out other books by the author. Jean Nathan, the author of the bio, got the idea when she had a sudden image of the cover of the first book, which she had read as a child. She eventually found the author, then in a long term care facility (her life after the final book was written was sad and it was really depressing to read about) and in fact wrote her obit a few years later. This started in the 1990s -- these days, it is not so hard to find her books, a few of them currently pretty cheap on Amazon.
One more thing. The NYT article notes some like the books because Edith always has the same expression (she is after all a doll, literally) and unlike some more cartoonish children books, this brings a sense of realism and allows readers to transfer their own meanings to the doll. Yes. The thing is that when I was reading the book, it doesn't quite seem like she just had one expression. This underlines the skill of Dare Wright, who (using simple materials, not some expensive camera work or anything) also was known to make clothes and decorate her apartment in creative ways. She did not like to talk much about her "process" in interviews or in general, according to the biography, being shy. It's a shame, since getting more insight about her thought processes would be interesting.
---
* Dare obtained the bears when her brother bought one for her and the son of a friend. She started photographing the three before the big one was given to the child, but afterwards felt incomplete without the whole "family" being together. She was going to borrow the big bear, but her brother said that one does not borrow bears, so he bought her one instead. Jean Nathan suggests in effect we have Dare as a child (Edith), her brother as a boy (who left her life at an early age) and a father figure (basically never around, even when her parents were married).
Bomb Girls
Found The Dictator too [not funny], but the first episode of this Canadian show (being shown on the Reelz Channel) about a munitions plant in WWII Canada showed promise. Meg Tilly (also an author) returns to the screen to play the floor manager/mother figure. One review called it a bit too soapy, but hey, so what? That can be fun.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Loser
[My state assemblywoman] who is being probed for putting her relatives and two lovers on government and nonprofit payrolls, was beaten by double digits in a race that was close during early returns.By someone with two "Js" in his last name. Might be a first. Maybe, she shouldn't have skipped the debate. The participants did a Clint Eastwood on her. Primaries have their values.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Janie Jones
Primary Day (cont.)
Low stress primary elections also are a good way to deal with new voting districts (bit of confusion for me at polls) and use the still fairly new scanning machines. Worked okay; last time, the sheet was torn off wrong and there were problems. The obscure people I cited were hard even to find doing a Google search.
Primary Day
Rare occurrence -- more than a symbolic choice for my NYC district, this time for the state assembly with the incumbent having various investigations ongoing. Usual "what?" races -- state committee and assistant district leader. The vote begging stuff etc. I received did not endorse anyone though I found one that did later. Along with judicial picks, it is a joke to have us vote for such people blind.
The Secret Life of the Lonely Doll
The rather sad story (a sort of Peter Pan figure with a dominating mother) of the author of the "Lonely Doll" series (which enthralled many a child, including the infamous spanking scenes) gets to be a bit repetitive, but still interesting. A major draw are tons of pics.
Obama's Big Hand In the World Stage
RM last night played a bit of a recent Obama interview with Telemundo and it was a tad presumptuous about our obligatory place in the world and apparent essential role in overturning the old Libyan regime. Like my opposition to his call for expanding the war in Afghanistan in '08, I am to his left there. Heaven help "pacifists."
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Go On
New Matthew Perry comedy/drama about a sportscaster going to a grief counseling group had some charm in the first two episodes though the first worked better. Will give it a chance. BTW, him giving away cats on a street corner -- not very funny.
Public Servants
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Dead Gitmo detainee was cleared for release in 2009
Sigh. On this, GG has some force, though the dissenters are more likely to be "Democrats." As I noted, change of location matters and there is no real way simply to dispose of every resident. They are not all like Latif. For instance, KSM ... just release him or what? But, sometimes, yeah, feels hollow. The defense is but of degree.
Buck Stops Where?
IOKIYAR, so the fact a Democratic President would be reamed for this sort of thing is of little note. Meanwhile, on whose watch was OBL killed? For the marginal voter, really, how hard is it? (# ... top 10)
9/11
I'm from NYC and was in midtown when it was happening. I saw the smoke. Seemed daily later on that I passed a funeral at the local church. Still, mid-afternoon, I took a subway home. "Everything" didn't change. Major change, sure, but like the death of a loved one, life went on too. I took this philosophy to heart then and do so now.
Election Thursday
The primary election here in NY will be delayed to Thursday in honor of 9/11. Personally, I don't think this sort of thing is necessary, and it is not like school and work is absent today. Wouldn't voting honor our values etc.? But, I understand the sentiment.
Week 1
Well, with the Mets dead and the Yanks struggling, football season began with a few upsets, especially the Redskins. Some final drives clinched favorites. And, both games yesterday were a bit lame, though the losers showed a bit of life at times. Jets had a prime opponent to show some life in all areas. Giants sputtered.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Swinging Texas?
Changing Corporate Governance, Not Constitution
The details are debatable, but the basic idea behind the article cited here is both good policy and more realistic than (sorry People for the American Way) thinking amending the Constitution is the answer to Citizens United. There is clearly a lot to do. [See also, "Shag" here.]
Army Wives
The only thing worth mentioning is a cliffhanger. I thought this show was done. It stretched the season to its detriment and then some song played about thinking it's over, but it's not. Ugh. Re-watching season one of Necessary Roughness on DVD. Pretty good so far.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Rev. Joe (Ronald Dworkin)
Ronald Dworkin has an interesting looking upcoming book based on lectures concerning an expansive definition of "religion," which was covered in Freedom's Law as well. Cass Sunstein informatively reviewed that book in the New Republic (5/13/96). Found the bio of Obama's mom (worthwhile concept) tedious and put it down.
The Spirit of Scalia
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.The contours of this "liberal construction" of the Necessary and Proper Clause was a matter of some debate during the PPACA dispute, among other things, but my focus here is the "spirit of the Constitution."
-- McCulloch v. Maryland*
This is a rather open-ended term and some think it is abused, particularly some with a liberal bent. For instance, I am skimming Ronald Dworkin's Freedom's Law (I have not tried to read his more deep philosophical musings; overall, some good stuff, but no need to go as far as he does in some cases) again ... he would be a poster boy. BTW, one review said his "white whale" is Romney's boy Bork. Yes, that Robert Bork, poster boy of originalism of the sneering variety. Again, Romney ... no.
But, a discussion on the originalism of affirmative action (again, go by my email name) led to another name -- Scalia. A word on that discussion, see also Scotusblog's discussion of Fisher v. Texas. The brief in question argues that Reconstruction Era federal policies shows that race conscious policies are allowed but the reply there is that state policies are different. Eh. The Supreme Court doesn't treat them different these days really, so if an argument is made (the case there is easy though; it's a small victory) that race can be used, it would be an important victory for that side. So, the criticism there for that (any other reasons; e.g., supposition that the Framers would not trust black friendly state legislatures with certain policies also is just that, supposition) doesn't do much for me.
Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES apply to the federal government too -- the Citizenship Clause established that all persons, not just whites, are citizens of this country and a specific state pursuant to certain guidelines. In the Federalist, Madison noted that slaves are denied an equal role in respect to representation but that once slavery is done, this was no longer the case. It was understood by many that the Thirteenth Amendment in some fashion (how much was unclear, thus the felt need of the 14A to clarify the legitimacy of certain federal policies) changed the status of former slaves, including badges and incidents of slavery that lingered on as applied to free blacks of the era.**
Underlying all of those decisions is the principle that the constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the general government, or by the states, against any citizen because of his race. All citizens are equal before the law. The guaranties of life, liberty, and property are for all persons, within the jurisdiction of the United States, or of any state, without discrimination against any because of their race.Bolling v. Sharpe applied the principles of Brown v. Bd. to the federal government, even without an express "federal equal protection clause," in part citing this 1896 precedent. Thus, it is wrong, as some claim, that it was in effect merely a "living constitution" approach that had no deep origins. The Supreme Court, unanimously, signed on to an opinion just around the time of Plessy that in effect that substantive due process as applied to the federal government included an equal protection component. I think the above is the start of an "originalist" argument on why -- the end of slavery, the Citizenship Clause and the "spirit" behind such things put blacks on a more equal footing, and this "liberty" was now the "law of the land" for Fifth Amendment purposes.
I would not merely rely on such things -- I'm not an originalist -- and think it clear that part of the point is that changing understandings of what "liberty" entailed and so forth factors in. Still, since the Constitution does not expressly say the federal government should treat people equally the same way the Fourteenth Amendment does, where do originalists like Scalia and Thomas get the idea that various affirmative action programs set in place by Congress are unconstitutional? The USSC ruling cited that evenly applies the principles (changing past understanding, which gave more, not unlimited, discretion to the federal government) did not rest on originalism. But, Scalia and Thomas concurred, citing "the Constitution's focus upon the individual" and "the principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution."
When the question is abortion or euthanasia, Scalia -- contra to the majority -- argues strongly that "the Constitution says nothing about the matter," which rulings like Griswold and Casey just as strongly shows is wrong. Dworkin criticizes such a limited view of the Constitution, but misses the larger point. If originalism is going to rest on such broad principles, which hey, I'm willing to take seriously (up to a point), why again is abortion not covered by it? The fact that the Constitution specifically does things like stop titles of nobility or the somewhat obscure Art. I, sec. 10 (a free lollypop to those who know what's in there ... when I get some) provisions is one thing. Saying such things are "an acknowledgment" to some larger principle is quite another. See also, how the "spirit" or something, of the Constitution stops Congress from requiring state officials to carry out enumerated powers or even (I'm off the bus here) blocks suits against states to protect such powers (e.g., a trademark dispute with a state university, not with someone from another state as the express words of the 11A covers).
Of course, back to the PPACA, we have the selective principle that Congress cannot require people to do things pursuant to its enumerated powers. I can understand why Justice Kennedy supports such open-ended spirits (Dworkin in the book noted at the time how much Kennedy was different in this respect than Bork, citing as an example AK's respect of gay rights, and boy did it come to pass), but not my man Scalia with his new book on the importance of "text" and all! Apparently, what the Constitution "says" is akin to the person who recently told me "Democrats" reject the RKBA, even when their platform supports the 2A because it says we should enforce current laws, strengthen laws regarding gun shows and re-authorize assault weapon bans (a trivial matter, to be honest, given the narrow reach, so really, it's more gimmick if perhaps of some small value). The Republican platform supports Heller (which allows regulations), only opposes "frivolous" lawsuits and promotes safe use of guns, but the Democratic platform is a sort of code -- the use of the term "reasonable regulation," contra support of millions of Democratic gun owners and the fact Obama only signed legislation expanding gun rights shows they really are "saying" the opposite.***
Bottom line, a consistent application of the principles behind the originalists (so labeled) who oppose federal based affirmative action would have a broad reach. It is notable that the actual concurrences cited above are rather thin gruel. Admittedly, if you go too deep here, you do run into problems, as the brief sort of shows. It's like a originalist support of Brown v. Bd (McConnell) that historical analysis shows to be faulty. The case can be interesting to read, but a full fledged and consistent approach is not something consistently shown by our Republican heroes here (Scalia and Thomas) while the people they are more wary about (O'Connor and now Kennedy) were always faint hearted originalists.
But, so are many more.
---
* The single footnote (not present in the Lexis version, nor is the case to my knowledge) references a case. A discussion I found suggests how his arguments, ex cathredra they might have been, are open to argument:
Chief Justice Marshall referenced a Connecticut case, Montague v. Richardson, to explain his interpretation of the Tenth Amendment as being similar to a judge's construction of a particular state statute: "A pension is a bounty for past services rendered to the public. It is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants. Statutes protecting his interest in it, until so used, are of a remedial nature and entitled to a liberal construction."The case might say more, but "a liberal construction" is pretty vague.
** I covered this ground in the past, but simply put, see, e.g., the works of Alexander Tsesis.
*** But an example, but see the thread in the Volokh Conspiracy post on how Democrats are going backward on "civil liberties," which actually is about national security issues (as the biased author there rephrased in comments), and "abandoning" here means "not forward enough" in certain areas. I think I covered this already, though.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
"Boumediene Lives to Fight Another Day"
The government had sought to make it more difficult for detainees who lost their habeas cases to continue to see their lawyers and more difficult for those lawyers to advocate for their clients, including by bringing new petitions based, for example, on new information or changed circumstances.See here and here for a discussion of a recent district ruling in the continuing attempt of Gitmo lawyers to obtain some court access for their clients. The D.C. Court of Appeals, the ultimate authority while the USSC in effect ignores the area, partially because Kagan is recused, leading to likely 4-4 rulings at best even if Kennedy finds some case of overreaching. The basic right even to bring a petition and the ability to see lawyers concerning the potential needs here (functionally, for those in Gitmo, the second leads from the first) is at stake here.
Kennedy wrote Boumediene to provide some basic federal judicial oversight, but various D.C. court of appeals judges have little respect for that ruling, applying it in ways many think overly narrow. Basically, as I have noted in the past, even if you want the President to need to go to court before using drones against people, the result might be more form than substance. Still, there continues to be some protections in place here, limited as they might seem, and the basic right to have lawyers, lawyers who bring their cases to court and to the public's view too puts pressure on the government as well.
This looks to be an important case to the degree it reaffirms the basic principles at place. As noted in a link, the opinion is well worth reading, clearly and firmly argued. The opinion reaffirms the fundamental nature of habeas corpus, a check on executive power that goes back to principles set forth in the 13th Century, along with what is needed for it to have much value. Gitmo defendants aren't going to be able to really bring these things pro se or something. It cites an interesting case where the USSC protected the right to obtain help from jailhouse inmates, the oral argument here,* and Justice Douglas having a worthwhile concurrence on the need of assistance to defend one's rights, including not only lawyers.
Lawyers are at stake here, but various cases here underline the importance of others as well, including media forces, private organizations and many others. The basic ability to advocate, which includes some access in various respects, follows from this. I would add that this underlines, contra some comments by Glenn Greenwald and the like, something as limited as transporting people from GITMO to domestic maximum security facilities (an Obama proposal blocked on a bipartisan basis) is valuable. Having people in some facility in Illinois leads to easier access to all.
---
* Good oral argument, including discussing the common law right of layman to assist in petitioning relief (the 1A right to petition was expressly cited and habeas / access to the courts generally is a form of this often ignored aspect of the amendment) with certain exceptions noted.
Friday, September 07, 2012
On the mail front ...
Thank you for your contribution to Mitt Romney.Other than a "non-profit" stamp (which I didn't notice at first) that looks something like the mockin-jay from The Hunger Games, the amusing thing about my junk mail today was an envelope with the above message. This amused me, thinking it was some mistake, but it turned out to be a gimmick from the People For The American Way about how Citizens United furthers backhanded means of donations to candidates.
Corporate money "unknowingly" will find its way, in part from profits from goods and services we purchase, somehow. Corporations under the old policy weren't prohibited from donating at all. And, whatever the excesses of the ruling, I am firmly against amending the First Amendment to address a short term jurisdictional trend. So, no signing petitions to my senators and representative, the latter who I basically never hear from,* supporting that sort of thing. Sorry.
Still, I enjoyed the laugh and the two pieces of scrap paper (one side of the paper, at least). And, enjoy your work overall. Meanwhile, it's nice that I received a discount for using my own bag (though oversized breads did require theirs), the .02 seems a bit little as an incentive.
---
* I hear a bit more from the senators, including emails from Sen. Gillibrand, and at times get material from state and local officials.
Still, it is notable that my state rep actually is getting a challenger putting in some real effort, down to a local office and promotional tee-shirts and the like ... got so bad, the rep actually sent a volunteer to my home to encourage me to vote. I am inclined to vote for the challenger, who is still unlikely to win against the establishment incumbent gal, just for that reason.
[I actually got a local paper today and seems she actually is in real trouble, which might be why he put forth the effort.]
Retroactive Legalization? Not Quite
[The below cites a reason why I felt it was time to take a break from LGM, especially after my comments that uh yeah states can have some local voting laws were ridiculed by comments of the level of five year olds, but there is some good stuff there. For instance, a cite [basically the only time I go to Slate per their decision to not appreciate my fray commenting] to this good article remembering Rachel Carson and the continuing attack against her.]
JFL (not me) does his usual best responding. The article speaks of Obama's "very troubling record on civil liberties," which as he notes on another thread, sort of ignores what the word means. That is, e.g., check out what the ACLU focuses open (hint: gays, voting rights, reproductive freedom). Continuing a historical trend (with some notable bright spots, such as being on the record of opposing waterboarding, which draws a line, something Eric Holder's predecessor refused to do; things like that matter) on executive power while firmly advancing the cause of "civil liberties" (sic) in various areas is not a "nadir" of civil liberties. Tiresome.
The article the blog post links to compares this to the administration's efforts against whistle-blowers. This sort of thing really is worthy of sneers, but the rhetoric sometimes leads one to think McCarthyism is back of something, when we are really talking about a handful or so of cases. Powers that be protect their power. News at 11. The sneer at a favorite target of the author, steroid prosecutions, is tiresome too. Yes, a stupid prosecution for allegedly using steroids and lying to Congress was taken too far, probably. There always will be such things. Just change the details. This has very little to do about the ability and wherewithal to take the very difficult effort (and I agree, there really should be SOME case they could find, even a token; I just don't appreciate the over the top response to the sadly unsurprising response here) to prosecute here.
The discussion cited is the sort of lazy (or something) response that has really annoyed me on this issue (the citation at the cost of the steroid cases as if that is the problem here is pretty stupid, e.g.). Won't link it, since I'm tired of it, but some post on Sentencing Law and Policy blog about judicial nominations brought up the whole "assassination" thing involving drone strikes. To be philosophical, maybe this is par for the course in pushing things. Activism often includes rhetoric that isn't really fair, coloring the other side a bit too black/white. Still, cheap shots also are unproductive in that they are so easy to refute.
Obama drew the line in the sand on torture, making it policy to be against it and making sure to include arguments of international and statutory law to defend his case on war and detainee (people locked up) policies. He let in a bit more light on the rules, including releasing more memoranda and explaining up to a point (for all means, yes, the actual analysis for the drone attack on an American citizen should be released) his policies (reference here to an important speech by an official on the rules). Obama pressed to weaken the excesses of a recent defense authorization bill, which opened up the potential for executive power that Obama did not seize. He actually tried and Eric Holder spoke out about to bring people like KSM to justice the right way. And, actually did investigate the actions of his predecessor here.
Not enough? Sure thing. Can various things be pointed out to show how the Administration is bad on executive power issues in the area of military and related policies? [Not "civil liberties," full stop.] SURE. But, Glenn Greenwald one-way rants without context or nuance is so f-ing tiresome. I'm sick of the whole thing really. I think it's useful to be something of a polymath, having some diversity of interests and knowledge, this including being able to see the whole picture. OTOH, you can, e.g., whine about how horrible let's say the Mets are, say they just STINK, ignoring they have a potential Cy Young winner, threw a no-hitter, have various other promising players and unlike past years, actually didn't go backward. You can still call them out for their problems.* [FN Update]
It is depressing. But, in part since I didn't think someone who signed on to telecon immunity back in '08 promised me a rose garden, I can also focus on the positives and the chance to move forward. Push hard to keep the wrongs of detention, drone attacks and military force present, including from enablers in the Obama Administration. I get off the bus, however, when stupid steroid comparisons and the like come up and a lack of perspective arises. Life is complicated. We are supposed to be members of the reality community, not simple-minded children who have better values, but promote them the simple way children do. Ugh!
---
* As I noted in comments in my brief reference to this in an earlier comment, a particular thing I have a problem with is when the Obama Administration doesn't just decide not to prosecute, which again I am doubtful could not occur in ANY CASE (the full-fledged investigations at issue in the recent story only covered a limited number of cases as is, two particular blatant cases in particular as covered by Maddow tonight), but moves to block civil claims. The claims will be hard to prove but the attempt to deny the right even to bring them, including using abusive state secrecy claims, is offensive to me. They have resulted in some narrowly divided appellate rulings, underlining the closeness of the case.
Rights need remedies for them to be meaningful. Civil suits provide a means to protect such rights, even when the state does not bring prosecutions, which have a higher standard of proof and various pragmatic and political concerns as is here the case. I think some sort of reconciliation process would have been useful here, the South African approach there an option. State acceptance of wrongdoing with compensation, as Canada did with Mr. Arar, also has its benefits, and I think its shameful (if civil suits will be blocked) the U.S. did not. Again, there is blame here.
I do blame the Obama administration for their lack of courage. But I blame the general public a great deal more for making the idea of prosecuting Americans for war crimes into an almost superheroic act of courage.I cited a discussion that criticized the over the top sanctimonious response to the failure to bring prosecutions against torturers. Not quite as bad, but still annoying (I really don't want to defend these guys on this issue as much as I do, making it worse) is this "retroactive legalization" (comment above found on the thread there) of torture discussion. I don't think "legalization" quite means what he thinks it means. You can criticize without mischaracterization.
JFL (not me) does his usual best responding. The article speaks of Obama's "very troubling record on civil liberties," which as he notes on another thread, sort of ignores what the word means. That is, e.g., check out what the ACLU focuses open (hint: gays, voting rights, reproductive freedom). Continuing a historical trend (with some notable bright spots, such as being on the record of opposing waterboarding, which draws a line, something Eric Holder's predecessor refused to do; things like that matter) on executive power while firmly advancing the cause of "civil liberties" (sic) in various areas is not a "nadir" of civil liberties. Tiresome.
The article the blog post links to compares this to the administration's efforts against whistle-blowers. This sort of thing really is worthy of sneers, but the rhetoric sometimes leads one to think McCarthyism is back of something, when we are really talking about a handful or so of cases. Powers that be protect their power. News at 11. The sneer at a favorite target of the author, steroid prosecutions, is tiresome too. Yes, a stupid prosecution for allegedly using steroids and lying to Congress was taken too far, probably. There always will be such things. Just change the details. This has very little to do about the ability and wherewithal to take the very difficult effort (and I agree, there really should be SOME case they could find, even a token; I just don't appreciate the over the top response to the sadly unsurprising response here) to prosecute here.
The discussion cited is the sort of lazy (or something) response that has really annoyed me on this issue (the citation at the cost of the steroid cases as if that is the problem here is pretty stupid, e.g.). Won't link it, since I'm tired of it, but some post on Sentencing Law and Policy blog about judicial nominations brought up the whole "assassination" thing involving drone strikes. To be philosophical, maybe this is par for the course in pushing things. Activism often includes rhetoric that isn't really fair, coloring the other side a bit too black/white. Still, cheap shots also are unproductive in that they are so easy to refute.
Obama drew the line in the sand on torture, making it policy to be against it and making sure to include arguments of international and statutory law to defend his case on war and detainee (people locked up) policies. He let in a bit more light on the rules, including releasing more memoranda and explaining up to a point (for all means, yes, the actual analysis for the drone attack on an American citizen should be released) his policies (reference here to an important speech by an official on the rules). Obama pressed to weaken the excesses of a recent defense authorization bill, which opened up the potential for executive power that Obama did not seize. He actually tried and Eric Holder spoke out about to bring people like KSM to justice the right way. And, actually did investigate the actions of his predecessor here.
Not enough? Sure thing. Can various things be pointed out to show how the Administration is bad on executive power issues in the area of military and related policies? [Not "civil liberties," full stop.] SURE. But, Glenn Greenwald one-way rants without context or nuance is so f-ing tiresome. I'm sick of the whole thing really. I think it's useful to be something of a polymath, having some diversity of interests and knowledge, this including being able to see the whole picture. OTOH, you can, e.g., whine about how horrible let's say the Mets are, say they just STINK, ignoring they have a potential Cy Young winner, threw a no-hitter, have various other promising players and unlike past years, actually didn't go backward. You can still call them out for their problems.* [FN Update]
It is depressing. But, in part since I didn't think someone who signed on to telecon immunity back in '08 promised me a rose garden, I can also focus on the positives and the chance to move forward. Push hard to keep the wrongs of detention, drone attacks and military force present, including from enablers in the Obama Administration. I get off the bus, however, when stupid steroid comparisons and the like come up and a lack of perspective arises. Life is complicated. We are supposed to be members of the reality community, not simple-minded children who have better values, but promote them the simple way children do. Ugh!
---
* As I noted in comments in my brief reference to this in an earlier comment, a particular thing I have a problem with is when the Obama Administration doesn't just decide not to prosecute, which again I am doubtful could not occur in ANY CASE (the full-fledged investigations at issue in the recent story only covered a limited number of cases as is, two particular blatant cases in particular as covered by Maddow tonight), but moves to block civil claims. The claims will be hard to prove but the attempt to deny the right even to bring them, including using abusive state secrecy claims, is offensive to me. They have resulted in some narrowly divided appellate rulings, underlining the closeness of the case.
Rights need remedies for them to be meaningful. Civil suits provide a means to protect such rights, even when the state does not bring prosecutions, which have a higher standard of proof and various pragmatic and political concerns as is here the case. I think some sort of reconciliation process would have been useful here, the South African approach there an option. State acceptance of wrongdoing with compensation, as Canada did with Mr. Arar, also has its benefits, and I think its shameful (if civil suits will be blocked) the U.S. did not. Again, there is blame here.
The Hunger Games
Eh. I turned this (various reviewers there agreed) off after a rather boring and listless first half (Elizabeth Banks came off as more interesting than Jennifer Lawrence). Whole disc of extras but no commentary. Sheesh. I liked the book overall.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Losing Chase
This is a 1996 t.v. movie in which a "mother's helper" (Kyra Sedgwick; her husband directed) comes one summer to help a mother (Helen Mirren) who is in a midst of depression. KS herself it turns out has serious issues to deal with in that department family-wise. Well acted but basically loses its way half-way thru and putters out some.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Not a BIG Fan, but Welcome to Reality
BTC News et. al. repeatedly railed against Obama's foreign policy and support of big money interests but at some point brings to mind the discussion here, including its more well rounded account of the election of 2008. And, realistically, punishment is impractical. Welcome to the real f-ing world.
What Guides You And Why
EV has a few posts at Volokh Conspiracy asking religious and non-religious people about what they believe and why. It not being about gays or guns, not too many people commented thus far, but interesting. I go my email name there now.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
A reason to vote "D" in November
Abortion as a Moral Choice
The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.
-- Planned Parenthood v. CaseyThe Abortion Myth: Feminism, Morality, and The Hard Choices Women Make by Leslie Cannold (2000) at its core argues that the right to choose an abortion basically boils down to trusting women to make the moral choice whether or not to be mothers. A scenario where an embryo can be removed and put in an artificial womb was not a "solution" any more (for most) would adoption, since the duty and responsibility here was in the hands of the woman. Her sample of pro and anti-choice (her terms) women both agreed with this sentiment. An abortion was not wrong here if done for respectful reasons in the interests of the life involved (often seen as a "child"), birth not always the "right" or "moral" choice.*
[This brings to mind Justice White's Doe v. Bolton dissent that speaks of choice of abortion based on the "convenience, whim, or caprice" of the putative mother. This is offensive -- the typical abortion choice is not of this nature, one is hard pressed to imagine that this is ever likely the case. A value of the book's approach is that it challenges this stereotype, just like "value voters" in 2004 weren't merely evangelicals.
I'd add that the state advocate in that case did something impressive -- defended certain exceptions to a general ban, the only problem is that the lines drawn are too narrowly applied. The stereotype is that the exception is basically "me," but limiting things to rape or severe health risks ("health" at the time was broadly defined anyhow) is arbitrary. Any number of sympathetic cases can be imagined. Ultimately, we should trust the woman, not some arbitrary panel of set of guidelines.]
It is not merely a "privacy" matter or about "control of my body" or a "medical question." It is a moral question, which women might greatly divide over but basically on the details. Focus on freedom of choice in this respect is "feminist," including seeing the pregnancy as not about some "other" (the fetus, often seen as floating in a vacuum almost), but a special condition of the woman as a whole. Cannold argued that such a moral argument will eventually be particularly important as technology moves up viability though even a decade later it is still around twenty weeks, after nearly all abortions occur. Of course, there remains enough to be a concern, including in public clinics in the UK and Australia (her home base), where abortion regulations are at least technically more strict or where many clinics are wary about later second trimester abortions.
[The law changed somewhat since her writing. As an example of differences, though public financing appears to be better off, the UK requires two doctor consent, though it's hard to tell if this practicably (except again in later cases) amounts to much these days.]
The book (a short one, under 150 pages, plus some introductory and appendix material) covers the complexity of this question, including the reality of getting pregnant in the first place. This is contra to some debates where women (much less likely men) are seen as reckless for getting pregnant, including for taking risks that are normal human behavior. Freedom includes not needing to give birth in such situations, just like a bad debt or job choice or marriage won't require some sort of involuntary servitude because of some "just desserts" mechanism.
The book also argued that if abortion is a right, physicians have some duty to perform them, including not tossing all the nasty work to nurses. Cannold might not want to treat pregnancy as a "disease" or merely a medical procedure, but as my label for many of these posts suggest, it is at least partially a matter of health care. As Roe v. Wade noted:
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.The opening picture is a discussion about abortion that includes various testimonials (to quote an Amazon review) "of real women from all ages, walks of life, and eras who have had abortions." The author is on the cover heavily pregnant, just like the author of this book is a mother, which belies the idea (that at least one person raised) that somehow you won't be pro-choice once you had a child. As noted here, if anything "planning" parenthood, including the right to choose whether or not to be a mother (intrinsically a role choice, raising clear Thirteenth Amendment implications) provides you with a greater respect to the importance of choice here, including trusting the woman, not the state.
I'm sure some will not be a fan of this approach (I know from experience, raising it a few years back and getting heavy push-back, the other person, a woman, simply not wanting to answer my point that questions of sex, marriage and childhood all have a moral dimension, even if it is not JUST about that). We let people get married and have children even if they make "wrong" choices, choices we have strong opinions on without wanting to take their choice away; why not here? Heck, some will say, yeah, to give a question she posed, I'll have an abortion to go on that Olympic trip. Even if you think this is wrong, who would trust the government to decide the question? But, I think there is a core truth involved here about what exactly is involved with this health decision, this control over one's body. It very well has a moral dimension and one where we should trust the woman (with the right amount of support) to decide is she will be a mom. Not wanting to admit it doesn't make it not so.
And, ultimately, she takes a step to protect the future child or the child if one there is -- hard as it is for some to believe -- quite often by abortion.
---
* As Justice Douglas noted in a pre-Roe opinion:
There remains the moral issue of abortion as murder. We submit that this is insoluble, a matter of religious philosophy and religious principle, and not a matter of fact. We suggest that those who believe abortion is murder need not avail themselves of it. On the other hand, we do not believe that such conviction should limit the freedom of those not bound by identical religious conviction. Although the moral issue hangs like a threatening cloud over any open discussion of abortion, the moral issues are not all one-sided. The psychoanalyst Erik Erikson stated the other side well when he suggested that 'The most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child's spirit.' There can be nothing more destructive to a child's spirit than being unwanted, and there are few things more disruptive to a woman's spirit than being forced without love or need into motherhood.This might throw people, since "values" or "morals" or "religion" (Ronald Dworkin argued in Freedom's Law that such basic value questions had a religious character; Justice Stevens repeatedly treated them as questions of "conscience") also are deemed to have a conservative flavor. But, that is misleading in the extreme. In fact, many religions expressly allow abortion in various situations, while other members accept it regardless.
Anonymity in Donations
This discussion of a pro-gay rights donation from someone who works for a Catholic group underlines that protecting anonymity has bite, especially up to a point. Doe #1 v. Reed itself recognized some constitutional interests; to me, it's at least good policy to not require small individual donations to out themselves all the time.
Beltran's Revenge For His Non-Hit In Santana's No-Hitter?
A questionable call killed a potential Mets rally in the 9th yesterday, tainting the game. It's part of the game though appeal plays (he allegedly missed first base; replays suggest at best that's dubious) are of the "better be really certain" variety. A lesson for refs of all sorts.
Monday, September 03, 2012
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Rev. Joe
I had various bibles over the years and Revised Standard often appealed, but obtained a free New American version and it is an attractive one too with informative summaries at the start of each book. I also found Paul Roche's Great Bible Stories very good.
The Help
I skimmed this book -- it's over 500 pages -- but overall I can understand why it was a best seller. It has your comedy, drama and is easy reading prose-wise. The author herself is a "Skeeter" sort, if one who grew up in the South apparently in the 1960s. Use of two black, one white p.o.v. makes it seem less "white woman" than the movie.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Others Have Off POVs Alert
I find the first comment here "astounding" -- criminal prosecution, including for pornography (!), does not have serious dignity concerns, even if you think somehow watching porn is one?! This from someone who thought a teacher should not be prosecuted for sex with five of her (adult) high school students.