And Another Thing (and Open Thread)

 

"Monsters and Angels" - Voice of the Beehive

- Maureen Dowd had a column the other day suggesting that the Jerry Sandusky scandal is indicative of an era in which we no longer recognize right and wrong with any clarity.  In this case, she focused on Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary who stood by passively while Sandusky molested a small boy in the shower.  I am not going to excuse McQueary's passivity, but would simply note in defense of our times that Sandusky is actually being brought to justice and held to account now for activities in which he has been apparently engaging for decades.  The notion that we are living in "dystopian" times in terms of our collective moral sense is absurd -- especially when one considers the degree to which these kinds of crimes against children (not to mention things like domestic violence) were routinely covered up or ignored by those who knew or should have known.  And someone should tell Dowd that Thomas More, whom she invokes as the anti-McQueary, was so certain of right and wrong that he was comfortable having people burned to death for reading the gospels in English.  I'll take passivity any day over that particular example of moral rectitude.  

 - Strangely, I actually agree with Ross Douthat and his Euroskepticism.  Calls for the presevation of the Euro and for greater continental cooperation in matters of fiscal and currency policy are essentially calls for rule by "expert."  Such ideas are at their heart anti-democratic, depriving elected national leaders of control over the most fundamental aspect of economic policy.  (Additionally, the experts have shown themselves to be not particularly skilled.)  I think those of us who believe in a meaningful electoral politics should find the calls for greater European integration along these lines to be troubling. 

 -  A number of really good pieces have been written about the recent coup against the president of the University of Virgnia -- I particularly liked this one by Jamelle Bouie.  What is going on at U VA is really quite astonishing.  One of the country's most prestigious state universities is being turned upside down by a few business types who sit on its Board of Visitors (regents to most of us) and somehow fancy themselves as experts in these matters.  Kieran Healey brilliantly captures the cretinous quality of these business titans and their pretense to have a vision for the university of the future.  Evidently it will not have a classics or a German department.  Thomas Jefferson would be so proud.   

- And yesterday was the 65th anniversary of the Taft-Hartley Act, one of the most insidious and effective pieces of right wing legislating in the nation's history. 

Must run off to a meeting while you have your say. 

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

Today is the Summer Solstice. I'm planning to celebrate by spending as much time in air-conditioned environments as possible: it's supposed to hit 97 out there today, and the humidity's so thick it's a wonder you can't swim in the air. For the past few days, it's been too hot and muggy for being outdoors to be pleasant even at dawn's first light. Hopefully this weekend will bring some improvement.

SC, someday you're going to have to educate us on the Taft-Hartley Act. (I think you meant 65th, btw.) If it's so bad, why did unions continue to thrive for another 25-30 years after its passage?

And various voices in the blogosphere have been correcting the record on Thomas More lately. He was clearly just another nasty fellow who was willing to go to any lengths to preserve the power of the institution, the Roman Catholic Church, that he drew his power from.

The issue he was faced with was simple: the Roman Catholic Church had a monopoly on deciding what Christianity was about generally, and in particular who was saved and who was damned, and that gave it great power.

If you let people read the Scriptures for themselves, they could come to their own conclusions about what it took to gain salvation, and then you can kiss your little monopoly goodbye, along with your worldly power. Which of course is exactly what happened to the Roman Catholic Church over the next couple of centuries.

The only question in my mind is, how the hell did Robert Bolt seize on the notion of turning Thomas More into a hero? Given that pretty much the entire English-speaking world sees More through the lens of A Man For All Seasons, his sin is pretty egregious. He has successfully borne false witness about More to the world.

[oddjob]

It's also supposed to reach 97 in Boston (a record)!

One of the chief instigators of the coup at U Va has resigned.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

It hit 97 in Brooklyn yesterday as well, was 94 at Citifield at game time, and only dropped below 90 at 10:30. Now it is a 'chilly' 88.6 here -- and I do mean 'here.' I use Weatherbug as well as the Weather Channel, and it relies on local school-based weather centers for its reports, so I get readings from 4 blocks away at Em's old school.

As I try to get to these comments I'm also following the liveblogging on SCOTUSblog, and trying to somment on Benen/Maddow, so I'm likely to be more 'scattered' than even my usual. The first case decided is another one of the unusual line-up ones -- on a 5th and 6th Amendment case, Southern Union. The dissenters are Breyer, Kennedy and Alito. I'll talk about the case, if I do, later, after I have a chance to read more on it.

Knox v SEIU an important union dues case is next, with a scattered set of opinions -- and remember, I;'m trying to get this stuff from live blogging and checking the original discussions. Checking the PDF, iy turns out that the Usual Suspects ruled against the union -- but that Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote a concurrence and joined in the decicion, and Kagan and Breyer dissented.

The Dorsey/Hill crack cocaine sentencing was the usual line-up with Kennedy coming up 'heads' (siding with the 'liberals'). Not a lot to say here now, but there's at least another case coming down.

The FCC v Fox 'indecency' case came down, and was decided, on due process grounds, for FOX, 8-0 (Sotomayor recusing herself).

But nothing on the big ones, Health Care, Bullock (the Montana challenge to Citizens United or the Arizona case.

I'll end this and get back to regular commenting.

[Paula B]

101 in western Massachusetts yesterday. We've had the ac running continuously for two days now, which is unusual. Most nights we sleep with the windows open. Two nights ago, it was 55.

[Paula B]

By the way, I'm betting SCOTUS will announce the big decisions on a Friday---tomorrow and/or next week. I would expect Citizen's United first.

[Sir Charles]

odd job,

You're right - it's the 65th anniversary.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Paula: No, SCOTUS, afaik, never announces decisions on Fridays. The next decision day -- and it won't be the last one -- is next Monday, which will also deal with the certs accepted at today's conference. That will include the Citizens United challenge. There will probably be one final mopping-up set of announcements on Tuesday or Wednesday, and the ACA decision may wait until that.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

Jim is right. The SC doesn't typically release decisions on Fridays.

odd job

I will explain the problems with Taft-Hartley Act soon.

[paula b]

Thanks for straightening me out.

[kathy a.]

it is mystifying how dowd can translate this set of incidents into a broad and recent breakdown in societal ethics. it does, perhaps, illustrate that human judgment is flawed, as it has always been.

a great many sexual assaults against women and girls go unreported. the reasons are varied: shame; confusion; fear that threats will be carried out; a belief that the person loves her; the fear she won't be believed if she reports; and when the perpetrator is in a position of power in her larger life -- not uncommon -- the fear she will lose other things (a job; her home; financial support of parents, etc.). even now, a girl or woman who is victimized runs the risk that people will judge her to be a slut, to have asked for it, that she is damaged goods.

all those reasons may apply when a boy or man is sexually assaulted, but with additional complications. only in the last couple of decades have people even talked about male sexual abuse. social expectations are that men can take care of themselves; those who are abused may then be regarded as weak and/or gay.

when boys or girls are groomed by a predator, that can make them feel special, loved, happy, important -- and very confused. when a 12 year old girl is wooed by a 35 year old man, she might think that means she is a grownup, and loved by this important knight in shining armor. there isn't really a fairy tale narrative for boys molested by men.

mcqueary made terrible errors in judgment -- errors of omission. not justifiable errors, but human ones.

SC, i think your reference to domestic violence that goes unreported is a decent comparison. probably many of us have known or suspected domestic violence was happening, and not made police reports. some of us -- i am one -- have witnessed or experienced it in our families, and not gone to the police. the mature me would probably do things differently.

[Bill H]

Seventy degrees and sunny in San Diego. Not typical for this time of year, when we usually have 65 degrees and low cloud cover most of the day. Freeze your thingy off at the beaches. We call it "June gloom" and it has mostly been missing this year.

Taft Hartly was not good, Truman was right to veto it, but it was not quite the vast evil that is sometimes gets painted to be. Preventing wildcat strikes is not all bad, for instance, and I for one do not oppose ending the "closed shop." Not a big fan of "right to work," however, and the "national interest" clause has certainly been abused. It should have been written much more tightly.

My father referred to Truman as "the little man in the White House," but then thought better of him with each succeeding president. Wound up withdrawing the evaluation before he died, and that was before W.

[oddjob]

(You're confusing me with l-tc.)

[kathy a.]

the illinois AG and cook county state's attorney are refusing to defend the illinois ban on gay marriage on the ground it violates the state's equal protection clause.

the thomas more society is thinking of trying to intervene, since they hate gay marriage.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Steve Benen had a story sufficiently important enough for me to excerpt more fully that even my own usual:

For about a month, we've been covering an interesting trend that Mitt Romney's presidential campaign finds problematic: some of his key gubernatorial allies keep telling voters the economy is getting better.

Many of the nation's key swing states -- Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania -- are led by Republican governors, each of whom are eager to tell their constituents that the economy is looking up. Romney is urging voters in these states to feel depressed and pessimistic, while Romney's gubernatorial allies are urging the opposite.

As other media outlets have picked up on this, the tension between Romney and the governors has grown more intense, as we saw last week with Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R). Bloomberg News reports today the problem is even more dramatic in the Sunshine State. ["we saw last week' links to an article in the online WSJ. It's now behind a printwall, but it starts

A recent TV spot that ran for weeks in Virginia had all the makings of an ad touting President Barack Obama's re-election effort.

"Virginia is growing strong again, and so is our future," gushed the narrator, adding that Virginians were now enjoying "the lowest unemployment rate in over three years."

Far from an Obama campaign plug, the ad was paid for by Republican donors and narrated by Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, a potential running mate of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

That's before the discussion of Branstad.]

"Mitt Romney's presidential campaign asked Florida Governor Rick Scott to tone down his statements heralding improvements in the state's economy because they clash with the presumptive Republican nominee's message that the nation is suffering under President Barack Obama, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Scott, a Republican, was asked to say that the state's jobless rate could improve faster under a Romney presidency, according to the people, who asked not to be named."

The meta angle is itself interesting -- Scott's office is annoyed enough with the Romney campaign that it's willing to leak word of Romney's untoward requests to the media.

But on a more practical level, the significance of a story like this is pretty extraordinary. Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe the economy is in worse shape than it really is, and he expects his allies "tone down" good economic news in order to deliberately encourage pessimism.

I find other significance as well, and a different 'meta-story.' For me the key facts are that the Republican governors of key swing states are arguing against the key argument in Romney's arsenal -- really the only issue he has for independent voters; that this has allowed to get out into the public rather tha being settled by some 'behind the curtain' discussion so that a face saving piece of boilerplate could have been worked out -- even just a 'despite Obama' opening to the 'our state's economy is doing good' section; and the 'meta story' that the Republican Governor of the "Most Important Swing State in The Country"(TM) not only is undercutting Romney's message, but is leaking a story that makes him look like a fool.

And yet we're told that "Republicans hate Obama so much that, however they feel about Romney, they will unite behind him because of that hatred."

I am not convinced. Think '96 strategy.'

(And remember, we only see Romney in newsclips. They get a chance to meet him and experience his intelligence, personality, character, honesty, charm, and competence directly. They know what he is, and what his chances are under pressure far better than we do.)

[oddjob]

there isn't really a fairy tale narrative for boys molested by men

True, but that's societal. They're very easily could be such since a number of Ancient Greek mythic heros and gods had infatuations with adolescent boys. Off the top of my head I know the list includes Apollo, Herakles ("Hercules"), and Zeus.

[oddjob]

My father referred to Truman as "the little man in the White House," but then thought better of him with each succeeding president.

My impression is that the country generally did the same. Truman's a good example of a president whose legacy is more highly regarded than he was when he served.

[oddjob]

the illinois AG and cook county state's attorney are refusing to defend the illinois ban on gay marriage on the ground it violates the state's equal protection clause.

Very interesting that. Worrisome if it gets to be precedent setting since it's not only a decision involving legal judgement but also political judgement, no? Yet at the same time it's cool that this issue is getting to the place where a prosecutor is no longer willing to defend the descrimination inherent to the law.

[kathy a.]

it is being painted as a political judgment, but it really is a legal judgment. everybody in government takes an oath to defend the constitution -- not just judges, even though the final decision, when push comes to shove, is with judges. lawyers take oaths to defend the constitution. the idea that lawyers for the state cannot take a stand on the constitutionality of a law (or they must defend a law they believe to be unconstitutional) is ludicrous.

there is a bunch of precedent, so this was not the boldest most radical move ever. SF mayor gavin newsom authorized gay marriages because he thought the law precluding them was unconstitutional; the state supreme court agreed, prior to passage of prop. 8. california's AG refused to defend prop 8. obama's administration is refusing to defend DOMA.

[oddjob]

Cartoonist Matt Groening ends Life in Hell comic strip.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Here's the AP report on the Ill. gay rights story.

For me, it's a hard one. I celebrate the result, but still have questions about the tactic. (If an assault weapons ban were repassed and the AZ AG refused to defend it on the same grounds, how would we feel?) On the other hand, how can a lawyer be expected to defend a case they don't believe in, and they consider wrong.

My own suggestion? That they be allowed to step aside -- but only if they find a lawyer, firm, etc. to replace them who would get paid by the state.

That wouls free them up without violating the requorement the state has to defend laws it has -- however unwisely -- passed. Comments?

[oddjob]

That's more or less what the DOJ did regarding its refusal to defend DOMA.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

Lawyers often defend cases that they do not personally believe in because they work for a client for whom they have an ethical obligation to do their best.

I think this gets complicated in the political arena where the executive branch is essentially entrusted to defend laws passed by the legislature. And I think you raise a good point, that there is some danger in the executive branch refusing to defend standing laws -- I think that's why historically things like pulling out of the DOMA case are rare indeed.

I think DOMA may present a pretty good institutional model, where the House in this case gets to have counsel defend the law, or, in the case with Prop 8, where a private actor is allowed to stand in the shoes of the state.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On my running dispute over the election, I have an even more radical suggestion. I was going to make a comment in my last piece "Of course, the Republican Party Professionals would prefer that Romney win, but..."

Then i stopped. Would they? Some would, the Norquists, the Kochs, maybe even Rove. And so would a lot of the 'true believer' Congresscritters, sure. But what about the 'amoral but realistic' professionals -- and there are some?

With the economic problems in Europe, the problems in the Middle east, the slowing of the economy in Republican controlled states, do they really want the responsibility of governing. It was, after all, the republicans -- particularly Nixon -- who invented the technique of 'winning by losing.' For years they offered things they knew were impossible, bringing back school prayer, reversing Roe, a Balanced Budget Amendment, sealing the border shut, etc.

They knew these things would not happen -- on Roe I doubt if any Republican candidate pre-GWB actually wanted to succeed -- which kept the issue alive -- and they knew Democrats knew they wouldn't happen, so they wouldn't need to mobilize the troops to reverse Republican successes.

Now surely there are quite a few Republicans who must realize their 'solutions' are actually 'solutions of bullshit dissolved in snake oil.' If they were to implement the Ryan budget, for example, they know how disastrous it would be for the company -- and that 80% pf the people would be coming for their heads.

And again, these people know Romney -- at least some of them -- personally. They've siZed him up as the disaster he is, the fool, the liar, etc. And they know, for example, there aren't that many Republicans who have any sort of feel for governing, or for foreign relations.

(Then there are the others who might even believe in Republicanostrums, but also want the job for themselves, don't want to wait 8 years. Paul, Christie, even McDonnell, and a lot of others.)

And who knows if Romney has enough self-awareness to realize, now that he has the nomibation, that he isn't up to the job if he wins it. Unlikely, sure, but it might explain why he's presented himself as even more of an arrogant, unfeeling frat boy than he has in the past. I mean, he wasn't this bad in 2008, or even as Governor. Bad, yes, but not this se;f-cariacture.

That last is highly questionable, sure, but the rest? I'm not going to bet on it, but I think it's not entirely inconceivable -- again, not for the majority of Republican officeholders, but for the McConnells and the other veterans who are more 'games players' than ideologues.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: I can't see another way -- and I insist that the state's being responsible for paying the substitutes is vital.

[nancy]

With the economic problems in Europe, the problems in the Middle east, the slowing of the economy in Republican controlled states, do they really want the responsibility of governing. It was, after all, the republicans -- particularly Nixon -- who invented the technique of 'winning by losing.' For years they offered things they knew were impossible, bringing back school prayer, reversing Roe, a Balanced Budget Amendment, sealing the border shut, etc.

Jim, I think that is exactly right. Just as I think they were immensely relieved to not have McCain and Palin inherit and have to respond to the financial meltdown of 2008. Seems they are giving signs of acknowledging that they can't have 'hands-free governance.' The modern MBA ethos and Agency Theory disease have so infected the party that its logical move may be to wait until the 'all clear.' By 2016 they trust.

LTC -- Hope you had a good day avoiding the heat, but according the LA Times, Summer Solstice -- 'twas yesterday. Who knew. Here in the Inland NW, it was our first day, I believe of hitting above 75º. No tomatoes likely in my garden again, two years running. :-(

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Much thanx, nancy, glad to see someone is at least capable of seeing on the same wavelength. And if that was too grouchy, well, it's 9:30 and the temperature is still 90.8.

Bah!

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I guess it topped out here at 98 today, but that does not begin to describe the ungodliness of the weather. The air quality was so bad.

I think poor Stanley may be getting his second clipping of the year on Saturday.

Jim,

I don't know that the Republican professionals care that much about Romney winning either. They are essentially nihilists who don't really give a shit about governing.

But I think the party faithful want to win -- they want to beat Obama desperately -- and are going to rally around him with a vengeance.

[nancy]

Prup -- This is the time of year when it's hard for me to fully remember the heat misery index that accompanied growing up in the eastern Midwest. Temp differentiation where I live now, from day to night, is about a 30º drop. So, yes. I remember the sweaty and grouchy to extend quickly to grumpy lethargy. Ugh.

'Bah!' almost requires too much energy. Have a beer. Or at least a popsicle or two. Apply first to forehead. Then enjoy. :-)

[nancy]

Hey. I just realized. Stanley looks cool a cucumber. And by the way, his coat is beautiful.
Someone must brush him lots. Right after the ham delivery.

98º right now in DC is very hard to imagine. Sorry. IOW, you can't venture out. Hope it's a short-lived heat wave all. That's emergency-dangerous to way too many folks if extended. It's only June.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I did buy several containers of ice cream -- but I'm also stuck doing the cat box tobight -- Oh joy abounding! No 'lethargy' permitted I'm afraid.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I grew up in a town on the ocean about twenty miles north of Boston. We never had air conditioning and even on the hottest of days by bed time most evenings it was cool enough to be comfortable. Maybe about ten nights a year you longed for air conditioning.

When I spent my first summer down here the constant heat and humidity just blew me away. I played a lot of basketball in those days -- four or five nights a week -- and used to work out at the non-air conditioned gym at the law school for a couple of hours a day. (I was working for a professor for $5 an hour, so I didn't overdo the working thing.) By the end of the summer, I was down to 158 pounds (I'm 6 feet tall) and was really tired despite being fit.

I've gotten used to the heat by now if that's possible.

I took Stan on a decent length walk tonight -- we ended up talking to people on the street, an effect he often has. I wish I could claim that I brush him often, but that is not the case. He has a hair-like coat -- he doesn't shed -- that tends to look good despite our bad grooming practices with him.

[Bill H]

This may stir up another flame war, but there is a difference between the executive "defending" a law and "declining to enforce" a law. Obama, for instance, is declining to defend DOMA, but he is still enforcing the provisions of the law. In California the governor and AG declined to defend lawsuits against Prop 8, but they refused to allow marriage licenses to be issued for same sex couples. In both cases I think the exective is following the proper course. He is required to enforce laws which are properly enacted (Article II, Section 3 "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"), but nothing requires to defend challenges in court against the laws.

[Linkmeister]

A brief analysis of Knox v. SEIU, handed down today. It looks to me like it could drastically reduce the amount of money available to labor unions for political work, whether GOTV efforts or advertising. What's next? Compulsory dues collection can't be compulsory? From this Court anything's possible.

[low-tech cyclist]

Fortunately, I've grown up in the DC area, so I'm used to its summers. When I was a kid, my friends and I used to play outside all day, every day, during the summers. We did have a community pool, which helped a great deal. And when I was in my 20s, I'd go on long bike rides on days when both the heat and humidity were in the 90s. I was young, fit, and crazy. :)

In my late 50s, my body doesn't just say 'no' to serious exercise in such weather, it says, 'hell, no.' Fortunately, it's supposed to cool down tomorrow.

[oddjob]

Boston's high the last two days was 96. That broke the record yesterday, but not the day before (when it missed by two degrees). This afternoon a cold front arrives so the ride home may be to the music of thunderstorms, with cooler weather tomorrow and thereafter.

Yesterday the high was 86 in Houston and Miami, and 99 in the capital of Chad (N'Djamena), on the southern edge of the Sahara.

[oddjob]

(And living on the ocean ten miles north of Boston I concur with Sir C. about the summers here. I have AC, but never use it. Having grown up in the Philadelphia area which has summers nearly as hot & sticky as DC's I don't really feel the need to use it, except perhaps about ten nights per year, but instead I open as many windows as I can and run the ceiling fan over my bed.)

[Paula B]

101 on Wednesday, and 100 yesterday in western Mass/southern VT. We've already used up our 10 ac nights, and it's still June. I dread July.
SC and lt-c---When I lived in DC in the 1960s, the only places that had air conditioning were movie theaters, the public library and some restaurants. We didn't have iti at home until about 1970. If you've ever wondered why row houses have double-deck front porches, it's so people could sit outside in the evening on the lower deck, then catch breezes (?) on what was then called a sleeping porch, upstairs. Brick row-house basements are cool, too, so people often turned them into summer living rooms and kitchens. This was before homeowners routinely chopped up their houses into apartments.
I'm looking for clouds announcing the rain that's supposed to push this stuff out of here, and don't see a single one.

[Paula B]

Note to Stanley:
Tell Sir C this is Take Your Dog to Work Day, although I don't know why any dog would want to work on a day like this.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On Knox it is ironic that I had planned on writing a piece last night defending the opinion in general, but, in fact, feeling that it should have gone farther.

I have this very annoying habit of 'trying the shoe on the other foot.' Do the exercise with me. Imagine Leviathan, Inc. (Dick Roman, CEO), announced that they were going to start a political action fund, and that all employees would be given the choice to contribute to the fund, to submit an 'opt-out' letter, or to be fired.

We'd be screaming to high heaven. I believe such a plan would be already illegal in several ways, but if it weren't, we'd be trying to pass a law making it illegal.

"But what about the 'opt-out' provision?" Roman would ask. "Doesn't that protect the worker's rights?"

"Yeah, right!" I can hear the chorus -- and I'd be joining it. "As if we could trust a mega-corporation not to find an excuse to punish employees that signed the opt-outs. Even the possibility of retaliation would make this proposal fatally flawed under the 1st Amendment. And what right does the company have to use employees' money for political purposes they might entirely disagree with?"

Yet this is precisely the position the union is taking -- and I'm sorry, but unions can be as coercive and clever at punishing people as can corporations.

Understand, I have no problem with unions using their own members' dues for political purposes -- because the member cab, at least theoretically, work within the union to challenge the decision, or even to replace the leaders who made it.

I have no problem with the idea of 'agency fees.' The argument "You don't have to join the union, but, because you benefot from the contract we negotiate for all employees, you can be asked to defray some of the costs of collective bargaining' makes sense to me.

But when those moneys are used to influence an election, when they are -- as they were so stated to be -- collected to help defeat a ballot proposal, this crosses the line. In this case, certainly, money IS speech, and I want neither my employer nor my union to have the right to force me to be a part of any political speech without asking me first. (And that would go even if I was 100% in favor of the speech. I can make that decision, I don't want to be told the decision has been made for me, or be given merely the option to get my money back if I disagree.)

Furthermore, the non-member can be given the option whether to contribute to the political fund or not, but once he chooses not to opt-out, he has no say over how the money -- usually a percentage of the entire 'agency fee' -- is used. He can't bring up a motion to get the union to act -- or to not act -- on a given issue. He cannot vote the leaders out if they misuse the money, or make decisions he would not make.

(There is one specific fact in this case that makes the violation even worse. This was not the 'regular yearly assessment' but a specific additional assessment to fight against certain ballot proposals. The assessment was levied on all employees -- even those who had opted out of the yearly assessment. The union stated that they would give the employees the chance to reclaim the money with the next yearly assessment. Even ignoring the question of whether non-members who have left the job in the intervening time would be elibible for the rebates, this results in the non-members being forced to give the union an interest-free loan.)

For all these reasons, I find myself agreeing with Justice Alito. If anyone has any counter-arguments (other than 'companies bad; unions good' or 'they need the money') I'll be glad to hear them.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I don't think we ever reached 100 these last few days, but 98 is quite hot enough, thank you. And checking Weather Channel's maps, there aren't any showers even popping up -- yet -- anywhere east of the Mississippi. We're supposed to get T-storms this afternoon, but the Weather Channel has made some sort of foul up. (I don't believe the tenperature is going to go 88-74-83 on successive hours.)

Anyway, speaking of showers, I need one, and the morning is beginning around here, so I'll get back as soon as I can.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Is TP eating our comments again? I can't believe we've been this quiet.

Inudderwoids, dis is a test.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think it just might be a lazy kind of afternoon.

It looks like we are going to have some torrential showers soon as the humidity breaks a bit.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

They already hit us, and they are in-tense, Actually, I had lost a comment earlier, just an AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! as the showers passed.

Anyway, things are clear for the Subway Series now, and maybe we can get back to the general talk later. (There's more and more good news in the Senate races. Heitkamp and Carmona -- much more on him) are both even, which is sorta incredible.)

[nancy]

Jim -- I'm following our grandmothers' advice today. 'If you don't have anything nice to say...'

Yesterday, this month's copy of The Atlantic arrived in my mailbox leaving me in a foul mood as it did a lot of others. Appalling cover, bold headline 'Why Women Still Can't Have it All'. TNR is running pieces on both why Mitt is such a fantastic fundraiser -- short version: he's a Mormon, and why the liberal big-donors are sitting on their hands thus far -- short version: all this fundraised cash is distasteful and destructive. Meanwhile my phone now rings probably three to four times a day with a call from one Democratic phone bank or another. And son's graduate school tuition just officially hiked another 16% for fall.

Too much disheartening. 'Going long' -- isn't that the expression?

Hope the storms have helped y'all out. I notice that Linkmeister wisely didn't call in the weather report from Hawaii. ;)

[Linkmeister]

Heh. Nancy, do I look crazy?

(We do have a few wildfires going on, although not at the scale of Colorado's.)

All is not perfect in Hawai'i. One of our eight principal islands is changing hands from one billionaire (David Murdock) to another (Larry Ellison). The citizens of that island are understandably worried. Change of any sort is unsettling.

[oddjob]

...For them [the GOP] it is always 1983. In fact, it must always be 1983. Because they have no other policies but those tried in 1983. Including the core element of fiscal fraudulence.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

The big storm just blew through here not long ago. I tried to take the little dog out for a walk while the thunder rumbled but before the rain fell. He got across the street and promptly hid under a parked car. It was a short walk before all hell started to break loose.

nancy,

I am going to put up a post about the Slaughter article. I heard her yesterday on Fresh Air and found the gender essentialism to be annoying.

Linkmeister,

I heard about the sale of Lanai yesterday. How strange.

oddjob,

I always thought it was 1994 for the GOP.

[big bad wolf]

i have my atlantic. haven't read the article. my immediate thought on seeing the header on the article was "who besides the extraordinarily rich can have anything approaching it all." only the well-off and the upper of the upper middle class (in our minds) as questions like that. our rhetoric is silly sometimes.

[oddjob]

I always thought it was 1994 for the GOP.

Nah. Jimmy Carter has been president for the last 30 years. Where have you been?

[oddjob]

To no one's surprise Jerry Sandusky's been found guilty on 45 of the 48 counts against him.

I'm not surprised and glad justice has been served, but as a Penn State alum (who hasn't ever gone to one of their football games, has no desire to do so, and wouldn't mind if there was no football team at all) this whole thing makes me very sad.

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

It's worth a read. I am working on a post about it. I remain troubled by the gender essentialism -- kind of a women inherently miss their children more than men do vibe at times -- and am really struck by how rarefied the air is which Ms. Slaughter breathes. But I think there are some worthwhile things in the piece and a lot of discussion worth having.

Ultimately though none of us get to "have it all." Most of us accept that there are constraints on our lives at a fairly early age. If you decide that things like marriage and children are important to you, chances are you are not going to be able to necessarily achieve everything professionally you might have aspired to. It seems to me from the this vantage point to be a fairly mundane insight.

[nancy]

bbw -- yup. my beef is the resurrection of the whole 'having it all' message, which was always destructive nonsense. for both genders. or, why my consciousness-raising session card was revoked early on.

[big bad wolf]

no thought is mundane if I (bold/italics/18 pt) have it. good god, you should know that by now SC. :)

i will read it. i am always behind on my magazines.

[low-tech cyclist]

I haven't read Slaughter's piece yet, but I liked Ed Kilgore's take. In a piece titled "The Ongoing Assault on Work-Family Balance," he says:

I understand Slaughter’s (and her editors’) framing of her lament as a commentary on “you can have it all” feminist rhetoric, and feminists (among whom I count myself) need to hear what she has to say on those terms. But in many respects what she’s mainly combatting is an idiotic American workplace culture, which is particularly powerful in elite professional circles, that values “face-time” in office work, meetings, and sheer, animal, competitive physical presence to the exclusion of any real measurements of productivity. In reading this piece, I was most reminded of Sara Robinson’s recent Alternet article on the demise of the forty-hour work week, and its irrationality from any empirical point of view. Like Robinson, Slaughter does not suggest the country, employers, or employees trade “efficiency” for “family-friendly policies,” but instead insists we are sacrificing both.

Read both pieces and see what you think. I think these two women—both of whom I know a bit and respect a great deal—are on to something very basic that illuminates the ever-increasing American dilemma of a nation that supposedly values work and family above all things yet sets them at odds and rewards them less every hour of every day.

Like I said, I haven't read Slaughter's piece, but I have read and recommend Sara Robinson's. And I've thought since the late 1990s that the Dems have been missing a bet by not making a big deal about issues relating to time: that the standard of time and a half after 40 hours needs to be reinvigorated (and I'd add in double time after 60 hours); and an absolute minimum of two weeks' vacation and one week's worth of sick days should be the law, not an option. (I'd personally go for more, but I'd want to start at a level that would have overwhelming support.)

[Linkmeister]

I've concluded the Lanai purchase looks odd to many people in part because it's a separate island. If it were just 90,000 acres of land in New Mexico or Nevada nobody would bat an eye if some billionaire bought it. Think of the King Ranch in Texas.

We've had some rumblings here asking "why didn't the state bid for it?" Well, first because it wasn't an open auction, and second because half-a-billion bucks isn't lying around in the state treasury unused. You could argue that the state could have issued bonds at the current low rates to cover the price and I wouldn't disagree, but that apparently was rejected.

[Crissa]

The state could just revoke ownership, anyhow. From liens to actual imminent domain, the state can, with political will, just take land.

I hate this constant argument of the ... of land ownership, as if we must bow down and pray to their names on contracts and dollars. We don't.

[nancy]

Linkmeister. Didn't Dole own the island for most of the last century? Kind of like Anaconda owning a good portion of Montana? And the Brit mining enterprises owning swaths of Appalachia? America. For sale. Nothing much new, actually. Canadian tar sands well underway.

That's why I hold out hope for the Montana case precedent as it makes it way forward. The good folks of Montana had something to say about heavy-handed outside interference in state affairs quite a while ago. And of course, as usual, IANAL.

Also why I think Tester will pull it out in the fall. He's the real deal and has never pulled a punch. Montanans, unsurprisingly, don't like to be yanked around from the outside. And they recognize same.

[Linkmeister]

nancy, yes.

A missionary’s grandson, Harry Baldwin, was the first to succeed on Lanai. He purchased Lanai in 1917 for $588,000. Baldwin developed a water pipeline between Koele and Manele. Five years later he sold Lanai to James Dole for $1.1 million.

Dole Pineapple was acquired by Castle and Cooke, which was purchased by David Murdock of Flexi-Van in 1985. C&C owns a bucketload of businesses, of which Lanai is only a part. The rest are on Oahu, I believe.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I've been quiet recently because the heat finally got to me, and I've been pretty out of it the last couple of days. Don't know how many of the hanging discussions I'll pick up on, but I want to and will get back to my series of comments on the Senate and House races that I am crossposting on Benen/Maddow -- you did notice the Heitkamp-Berg (ND) piece I did, didn''t you? I want to cover the Arizona race between Dr. Richard Carmona and Jeff Flake, but just to give you a sample of why Carmona might be the most interesting candidate we are running -- as well as a formerly registered Independent, the Surgeon General under George W. Bush, and someone that President Obama actively recruited to run -- and Republicans were also thinking of recruiting -- a Vietnam Vet and ex-'Street Kid' from (Spanish) Harlem.

If you think "Uh-oh, another blue dog" think again. He currently has Al Franken campaigning with him, he's supported strongly by Planned Parenthood, but mostly he says things like this, in an oped he wrote last month-- yes, read it all:

A frightening symptom is caused by a major systematic problem – that’s true in medicine, and it’s true in politics.

This birther nonsense that has popped up in Arizona over the last few weeks isn’t really about the president’s citizenship. Even the candidates and elected officials who are pushing this stuff don’t seem to actually doubt that the president is a citizen.

[snip]

So to get back to the medical analogy – I am a doctor after all – the symptom here is ridiculous behavior from people who should know better. The cause is our broken politics and public discourse that incentivizes the wrong things – rewarding this kind of bizarre behavior.

The good news is, there is a course of treatment.

[snip]

Our leaders need to make the simple choice for commonsense and core competency over bizarre publicity stunts that may get you on television, but are an embarrassment to our state. And as voters, we all need to make the decision that we’re going to reward behavior that moves this state forward and ignore the sideshows that block progress.

Unfortunately though, too many of our politicians are making the choices detrimental of our state.

We live in a world of YouTube moments and divisive partisan arguments. And because too many of our leaders are career politicians who focus on getting themselves reelected over serving the people, the folks we elect to represent our communities are instead trying to one-up each other in this strange game of pushing distractions, instead of issues, just to get on television.

It’s shameful. And it’s why political paralysis reigns today in Washington and at our state capitol...

And, from all the accounts I've read this is the way he always talks, bluntly and saying what he thinks. And his personal story is getting hin such a reputation that he is being called a 'rock star' candidate. (One writer did an admittedly funny put-down of this starting with a 'report he killed a bear that was terrorizing a local couple with his bare hands' and going on from there,

Much has been said about this intriguing Democrat. It is said that "Carmona" is Puerto Rican for "Chuck Norris." It is said that he eats barbed wire for dinner and in a nonpartisan gesture of goodwill chews scorpions into an edible mash for Gov. Brewer.

Clint Eastwood said Carmona told him to have a nice day, punk, and he did. Tom Cruise said Carmona taught him how to rappel down the side of the Dubai Tower, and Vladimir Putin bragged about the time Carmona showed him how to hypnotize a snow leopard.

A lot has been said about this man who has been a Green Beret, the surgeon general of the United States, a member of the Pima County Sheriff's Department, a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker and Vin Diesel's life coach....

[snip]

The new label on cigarette packs would read "Warning: Surgeon General Carmona has you surrounded. Lie on the ground. Put your hands behind your back. Back away from the cigarette."

Today, Carmona's résumé weighs as much as the Statue of Liberty, yet he can lift it unaided.

With such a résumé it was inevitable the world of politics would call on him again. Previously an independent, Carmona has chosen to run as a Democrat only because JFK and FDR traveled through time to join the president in pleading with him to run.

The scary -- and wonderful -- thing is that this is only a *ahem* 'slight exaggeration' of the reputation he really is getting. Keep watching this one.

(No, this isn;'t the report I mentioned above, just a hint of why he's the second person I chose to focus in on.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oh, and I hadn't checked the Wikipedia entry on Carmona. This is a sample of his real-life story -- but only one piece of it:

He worked for the Pima County Sheriff's Department since 1986. He eventually worked his way up to deputy sheriff. He served as medical director of the county's police and fire departments. He was a peace officer leader of the SWAT division, with expertise in special operations and emergency preparedness, including weapons of mass destruction.

In 1999, he confronted a mentally-ill person who was assaulting someone else at a car accident. After the person would not step out of his car, he shot at Carmona, grazing his head, and the Deputy Sheriff shot back seven times, killing him. The deceased was an ex-convict who had shot and killed his father that day. In 2000, he was honored by the National Association of Police Organizations as one of the nation's top cops.

The guy is REAL and isn't that a refreshing change on both sides of the aisle?

[Paula B]

Mitt and Michael Milliken, a marriage made in hell:
http://bo.st/KHcDKJ

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And now for something completely different:

I've mentioned that, along with current tv, Em and I watch a lot of movies from the 30s and 40s on TCM. It's great fun because neither one of us had watched many of them -- and in my case when i had seen them it was in Manhattan on broadcast -- meaning static and poor quality prints. So it's great finally seeing something I've heard mentioned or read references to, but had never sat through.

But it's even more fun finding obscure films that should be better known, like the wonderful LIBELED LADY -- with Tracy, Harlow, William Powell, and Myrna Loy -- that was the thing that really got us started -- and we've watched at least half the movies each of those four stars made since then.

Today's recommend is not on that level, but for one of the more delightful farces around, watch out for a movie called PLAYMATES, starring the unlikely combination of John Barrymore and Kay Kyser and a supporting cast of Patsy Kelly, May Robson, a very young Peter Lind Hayes, and the original "Latin Spitfire," Lupe Velez, all at the top of their form. (And the Kyser band is there, of course, for music and acting, and this the version featuring the delightful Ginny Simms.)

This was Barrymore at the end of his career -- it was, in factm his last movie -- and he had become a parody of himself. Fortunately, he realized this -- in much the way William Shatner did -- and plays himself as pure farce, as just what he has become, a once great now out of the spotlight, pursued by 'a man with long whickers who says he's your Uncle' -- i.e., the taxman.

Kelly is Barrymore's secretary/press agent/whatever, and Hayes plays Kyser's equivalent. Kyser is -- as he was at the time (1941), getting all sorts of headlines, while Barrymore is totally unable to get noticed. He knows -- well, Kelly knows -- his troubles will be over if he can only get a radio contract, but "Mr. Pennypacker" won't hire him because nobody wants him. So she promises to get him in the papers, and she and Hayes cook up a scheme where Barrymore will supposedly coach Kyser to try to play Shalespeare. Barrymore's revolt is wonderously hammy, "Me, appear with that..." -- followed by a wonderful stream of pollysyllabic put-downs. Then the taxman shows up.

Kyser is equally convinced its an awful idea, because of his own admiration for Barrymore, and he's backed up by Robson as his grandmother. But they decide to go ahead with it -- with Barrymore growling 'I'll coach him, but I'll never appear with him.'

Then the complications, which involve a charity performance, a mess of romantic misentanglements, Velez, a fake medium who is listened to slavishly by Barrymore -- and a lot more. It's light, silly, but a lot of fun, and if it pops up again, give it some space on your DVR, wait till you need some delightful silliness, and put it on.

(One reviewer for the imdb said that it is almost a tragedy to watch Barrymore like that, reduced to self-parody, but I can't agree. Yes, he'd never be the star he'd been and his drinking would kill him, but, as Em said, if you have to end a career, how better than with something this delightful poking fun at it. Better than pathetically pretending to be who you could never be again.)