Starting to Read: Stephen King's From A Buick 8. I've been looking forward to this since he discussed it in passing in his book on writing, (which was titled, "On Writing," if I remember correctly.)
Oh great, now we have to contend with the SI cover curse.
Despite the disparity on the scoreboard, the statistics for the game were very close, with the Raiders owning just slight advantages in first downs (24-23) and total yards (464-430). McNair threw for a career-best 398 yards and four Titans notched 4 receptions or more. Gannon put up 381 yards and 4 touchdown passes, as Jerry Rice and Tim Brown combined for 13 catches and 234 yards.
Appellee has suggested that there are other reasons why the dismissal of the indictments should be affirmed. Essentially, these arguments [402 U.S. 73] are based on this Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Although there was some reference to these arguments in the opinion of the court below, we read it as holding simply that the statute was void for vagueness because it failed in that court's language to "give that certainty which due process of law considers essential in a criminal statute." 305 F.Supp. at 1034. Since that question of vagueness was the only issue passed upon by the District Court it is the only issue we reach here.
Raiders Win -- and I'm elated! My observation, though is that the Jets were never defeated. They are going to be awesome next year.
Thus, despite what the activists want you to think, the real question on abortion is whether the right to privacy or the right to life should prevail. Which comes down to the real choice on abortion: Is the fetus human?Listening to some of the oral arguments from the two arguments in Roe (it was argued and then put over for reargument) last week I was struck by Justice Stewart's questioning on this point and I realized that he was troubled about the "activist" dimension to what would happen if the Court held the fetus was a person -- that is a person for constitutional purposes. Here are a couple of clips from the oral arguments (second argument). First the Court and Sarah Weddington arguing to overturn the state statute:
If the fetus isn't human, then getting an abortion is no different from getting a tattoo or a nose job. It's a victimless procedure that is nobody's business and should be legal.
If the fetus is human, then it deserves all the constitutional protections that you and I enjoy, the most important being the right to life.
If a fetus is human, then the logical conclusion is inescapable: Abortion, by definition, is homicide and should be illegal except when, to save her own life, the mother aborts in self-defense.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN: Well, do I get from this, then, that your case depends primarily on the proposition that the fetus has no constitutional rights?Shortly thereafter Robert Flowers began his argument on behalf of the state of Texas and in favor of the statute:
MRS. WEDDINGTON: It depends on saying that the woman has a fundamental constitutional right and that the State has not proved any compelling interest for regulation in the area.
Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE: That's what's involved in this case? Weighing one life against another?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: No, Your Honor. I say that would be what would be involved if the facts were different, and the State could prove that there was a person, for the constitutional right.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Well, if--if--it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: I would have a very difficult [*21] case.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: I'm sure you would. So if you had the same kind of thing, you'd have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn't that correct?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: That's correct. That--
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: Could Texas constitutionally--did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart?
Did you want to respond further to him?
MRS. WEDDINGTON: No, Your Honor.
It is impossible for me to trace, within my allocated time, the development of the fetus from the date of conception to the date of its birth. But it is the position of the State of Texas that upon conception we have a human being, a person within the concept of the Constitution of the United States and that of Texas, also.My emphasis added. As I listened to Justice Stewart it occurred to me that he was really troubled by the apparent conflict -- the apparent judicial activism the Court would have to engage in, he felt, should it declare a fetus to be a person, for constitutional purposes. On the contrary, for example, Justice Marshall seemed to be toying with Mr. Flowers, treating him more like a hostile party -- it was obvious he had already made up his mind.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Now, how should that question be decided, is it a legal question, a constitutional question, a medical question, a philosophical question, or a religious question, or what is it?
MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor, we feel that it could be best decided by a legislature in view of the fact that they can bring before it the medical testimony, the actual people who do the research. But we do have--
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: So then it's basically a medical question?
MR. FLOWERS: From a constitutional standpoint, no, sir. I think it's fairly and squarely before this Court. [*24] We don't envy the Court for having to make this decision.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Do you know of any case anywhere that's held that an unborn fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment?
MR. FLOWERS: No, sir, we can only go back to what the framers of our Constitution had in mind.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Well, these weren't the framers that wrote the Fourteenth Amendment. It came along much later.
MR. FLOWERS: No, sir. I understand. But the Fifth Amendment, under the Fifth Amendment: no one shall be deprived of the right to life, liberty, and property without the due process of law.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Yes, but then the Fourteenth Amendment defines "person" [and it defines person] as somebody who's born, doesn't it?
MR. FLOWERS: I'm not sure about that, sir. I--
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: [Well, it does.] All right. [Alt: words "all right" not spoken.]
Any person born, or naturalized in the United States.
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: It doesn't [Alt: "Doesn’t it"] --[I suppose] that's not the definition of a "person" but that's the definition of a "citizen."
MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor, it's our position that the definition of a person is so basic, it's so fundamental that [it is] the framers of the Constitution had not even set out to define. We can only go to what the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.
[*25]
We have numerous listings in the brief by Mr. Joe Witherspoon, a professor at the University of Texas, that tries to trace back what was in their mind when they had the "person" concept when they drew up the Constitution.
He quoted Blackstone in 1765, and he observed, in his Commentaries, that: "Life. This right is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born."
* * *
MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Well, if you're correct that the fetus is a person, then I don't suppose you'd have--the State would have great trouble permitting an abortion, would it?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE: In any circumstances?
MR. FLOWERS: It would, yes, sir.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE: To save the life of a mother or her health or anything else?
MR. FLOWERS: Well, there would be the balancing of the two lives, and I think that--
MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Well, what would you choose? Would you choose to kill the innocent one, or what?
MR. FLOWERS: Well, in our statute the State did choose that way, Your Honor. [*27]
* * *
MR. FLOWERS: . . . Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of a fetus being within the concept of a person, within the framework [*30] of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution, is an extremely fundamental thing.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Of course, if you're right about that, you can sit down, you've won your case.
MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor,--
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Except insofar as maybe the Texas abortion law presently goes too far in allowing abortions.
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir. That's exactly right. We feel that this is the only question, really, that this Court has to answer.
We have a--
MR. JUSTICE WHITE: Do you think the case is over for you? You've lost your case, then, if the fetus or the embryo is not a person, is that it?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, I would say so.
* * *
MR. FLOWERS: You're entirely right there. But I find no way that I know that any court or any legislature or any doctor anywhere can say that here is the dividing line. Here is not a life; and here is a life, after conception.
Perhaps it would be better left to that legislature. [Alt: "to our legislators."] There they have the facilities to have some type of medical testimony brought before them, and the opinion of the people [*39] who are being governed by it.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Well, if you're right that an unborn fetus is a person, then you can't leave it to the Legislature to play fast and loose dealing with that person. In other words, if you're correct in your basic submission that an unborn fetus is a person, then abortion laws such as that which New York has are grossly unconstitutional, isn't it?
MR. FLOWERS: That's right, yes.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Allowing the killing of people.
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: A person. [Alt: "--of persons"]
MR. FLOWERS: Your Honor, in Massachusetts, I might point out--
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: Definitely it isn't up [Alt: "You can’t leave this up"] to the Legislature; it's a constitutional problem, isn't it?
MR. FLOWERS: Well, if there would be any exceptions within this--
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: The basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn't it?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir. And entitled to the constitutional protection.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART: And that's critical to this case, is it not?
MR. FLOWERS: Yes, sir, it is. [*40]
The Church celebrated yesterday the Feast of the Holy Innocents, the children Herod ordered slaughtered in an attempt to kill the newborn King of the Jews, Jesus. The acknowledged good of a stable dynasty veiled a brutal and reprehensible fact, and for the sake of that perceived possible positive outcome actual flesh was ripped open. The self-indulgence of the indolent is paid for out of the flesh of the innocents of the world, those powerless to defend themselves, except by acts of terror. Our consuming and combative choices hack away at the fabric of life, and we are slashed and burned in return. And if we answer, even sincerely, that we do not know on whose back we ride, that ignorance will not save us, and if we are lucky enough to die before the verdict comes in, that escape does not mean that we are numbered among the holy innocent.The whole sermon may be found here -- I did give you the entire risible passage so you can evaluate in context.
For over a decade, the United States has held to an intensification of the U. N. sanctions on Iraq, blocking with its veto and entangling in debates any attempt to relieve that nation. As part of the “dual-use” considerations of the sanctions, by which items which might conceivably be used for military purposes are kept out, equipment to repair Iraq’s sewage plants have been held up. By 1996, all the sewage treatment plants in Iraq had broken down; 300,000 tons of raw sewage are dumped into Iraqi rivers daily. This, of course, has meant an increase of cholera, typhoid, and dysentery. But the necessary vaccines are also blocked, with the claim that they might be used to make biological weapons—a technically unlikely claim. Thirteen percent of all Iraqi children will die before their fifth birthday of these diseases and related conditions; twenty-five percent of all the children in the southern region live in chronic malnutrition. Is it better not to know about these Holy Innocents? By the grace of God, moments of brutality can become moments in which the powerful are forced into the most horrific knowledge of themselves by seeing their own violence and brought to repentance. We must see how flesh pays for our words if we are to change. The question remains, with whom do you identify?—and if it is Herod, wail.
I was insisting to my wife last night that at the very worst it was off-setting penalties and there should've been one last play from the line of scrimage. I was somewhat mollified when the announcers said that the ineligible player was the one interfered with, but I had my doubts then. I figured the lineman had reported as an eligible player or else it would've been a different penalty -- and therefore, he was eligible and interfered with downfield.
If defensive pass interference had been called, there would have been offsetting penalties (ineligible receiver against the Giants and pass interference against the 49ers), with the down replayed at the original line of scrimmage, the San Francisco 23-yard line. Although time had expired, a game cannot end with offsetting penalties. Thus, the game would have been extended by one untimed down.'Also, note that the holder could not have spiked the ball (contrary to Chris Collingsworth).
This is what doesn't add up: the Giants have 15 coaches and no one forcefully made the case that Rich Seubert was an eligible receiver and that the officials had blundered. Someone on Coach Jim Fassel's staff should have insisted that the Giants remain on the field until the referee Ron Winter had clarified the crew's call. Was the call not made because the other officials thought that Seubert was ineligible? Or did he simply feel that Seubert had not been interfered with. But there was never a clarification until yesterday when the N.F.L. released a statement blaming the officials for not making an interference call.Part of it is attributable to home field advantage -- the fans ran on to the field and the officials departed. If you're an official in Pittsburgh, New England or San Francisco and are called on to make a controversial call -- do you go against the home team? Or let's look at it another way -- if this game were in the Meadowlands, don't you think the officials would have got it right? Unless the teams were reversed and it were the 49ers getting screwed.
"It is rather a strange and sad story," [Treebeard] went on after a pause. "When the world was young, and the woods were wide and wild, the Ents and the Entwives - and there were Entmaidens then: ah! the loveliness of Fimbrethil, of Wandlimb the lightfooted, in the days of our youth! - they walked together and they housed together. But our hearts did not go on growing in the same way: the Ents gave their love to things that they met in the world, and the Entwives gave their thought to other things, for the Ents loved the great trees, and the wild woods, and the slopes of the high hills; and they drank of the mountain-streams, and ate only such fruit as the trees let fall in their path: and they learned of the Elves and spoke with the Trees. But the Entwives gave their minds to the lesser trees, and to the meads in the sunshine beyond the feet of the forests; and they saw the sloe in the thicket, and the wild apple and the cherry blossoming in spring, and the green herbs in the waterlands in summer, and the seeding grasses in the autumn fields. They did not desire to speak with these things; but they wished them to hear and obey what was said to them. The Entwives ordered them to grow according to their wishes, and bear leaf and fruit to their liking; for the Entwives desired order, and plenty, and peace (by which they meant that things should remain where they had set them). So the Entwives made gardens to live in. But we Ents went on wandering, and we only came to the gardens now and again. Then when the Darkness came in the North, the Entwives crossed the Great River, and made new gardens, and tilled new fields, and we saw them more seldom. After the Darkness was overthrown the land of the Entwives blossomed richly, and their fields were full of corn. Many men learned the crafts of the Entwives and honoured them greatly; but we were only a legend to them, a secret in the heart of the forest. Yet here we still are, while all the gardens of the Entwives are wasted: Men call them the Brown Lands now.
"I remember it was long ago - in the time of the war between Sauron and the Men of the Sea - desire came over me to see Fimbrethil again. Very fair she was still in my eyes, when I had last seen her, though little like the Entmaiden of old. For the Entwives were bent and browned by their labour; their hair parched by the sun to the hue of ripe corn and their cheeks like red apples. Yet their eyes were still the eyes of our own people. We crossed over Anduin and came to their land: but we found it a desert: it was all burned and uprooted, for war had passed over it. But the Entwives were not there. Long we called, and long we searched; and we asked all folk that we met which way the Entwives had gone. Some said that they had never seen them; and some said that they had seen them walking away west, and some said east, and others south. But nowhere that we went could we find them. Our sorrow was very great. Yet the wild wood called, and we returned to it. For many years we used to go out every now and again and look for the Entwives, walking far and wide and calling them by their beautiful names. But as time passed we went more seldom and wandered less far. And now the Entwives are only a memory for us, and our beards are long and grey. The Elves made many songs concerning the Search of the Ents, and some of the songs passed into the tongues of Men. But we made no songs about it, being content to chant their beautiful names when we thought of the Entwives. We believe that we may meet again in a time to come, and perhaps we shall find somewhere a land where we can live together and be content. But it is foreboded that that will only be when we have both lost all that we now have. And it may well be that that time is drawing near at last. For if Sauron of old destroyed the gardens, the Enemy today seems likely to wither all the woods.
"There was an Elvish song that spoke of this, or at least so I understand it. It used to be sung up and down the Great River. It was never an Entish song, mark you: it would have been a very long song in Entish! But we know it by heart, and hum it now and again. This is how it runs in your tongue:Treebeard ended the song. "That is how it goes," he said. "It is Elvish, of course: it is lighthearted, quickworded, and soon over. I daresay it is fair enough. But the Ents could say more on their side, if they had time!"
ENT: When Spring unfolds the beechen leaf, and sap is in the bough;
When light is on the wild-wood stream, and wind is on the brow;
When stride is long, and breath is deep, and keen the mountain-air
Come back to me! Come back to me, and say my land is fair!
ENTWIFE: When Spring is come to garth and field, and corn is in the blade
When blossom like a shining snow is on the orchard laid;
When shower and Sun upon the Earth with fragrance fill the air;
I'll linger here, and will not come, because my land is fair.
ENT: When Summer lies upon the world, and in a noon of gold
Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold;
When woodland halls are green and cool, and wind is in the West,
Come back to me! Come back to me, and say my land is best!
ENTWIFE: When Summer warms the hanging fruit and burns the berry brown;
When straw is gold, and ear is white, and harvest comes to town;
When honey spills, and apple swells, though wind be in the West,
I'll linger here beneath the Sun, because my land is best!
ENT: When Winter comes, the winter wild that hill and wood shall slay
When trees shall fall and starless night devour the sunless day;
When wind is in the deadly East, then in the bitter rain
I'll look for thee, and call to thee; I'll come to thee again!
ENTWIFE: When Winter comes, and singing ends; when darkness falls at last
When broken is the barren bough, and light and labour past;
I'll look for three, and wait for thee, until we meet again;
Together we will take the road beneath the bitter rain!
BOTH: Together we will take the road that leads into the West.
And far away will find a land where both our hearts may rest."