Spooky spy stuff…

Last night I posted a blog entry questioning Senator Feingold’s recent vote against the extension on the ban on military-style assault weapons (see below). I had my say then and there, after which I retired to a yoga-like position of total political disengagement. I thought it would last at least a week.

Today, though, I came home to a letter from Senator Feingold. On the envelope I read, in big bold letters against a red background, “HOW MUCH DO YOU AND I AGREE?” I don’t want to open it. It’s spooky. How quickly did Senator Feingold muster his support to respond to my critical blog post? Will I be mentioned by name inside the letter, perhaps as a subversive force that is undermining the deeply (albeit, at present, slightly camouflaged) democratic tradition that the Senator wishes to align himself with?

Did anyone else get the same letter? If not, I have to believe that I am being targeted.

Truly, this isn’t excessive worry on my part. I know when these things get politically charged. Remember, please, that I come from a history of tough times for the political outlier. Back in the 60s, one of my NY (elementary school) classmates came up to me and asked “is it true that in Poland armed guards stand outside of each classroom and SHOOT anyone who disagrees?” And, in case that wasn’t enough, in those years, my family was not permitted to drive through many counties in each and every state because of our status as belonging to the Polish (a.k.a. communist) diplomatic corps (Georgia was the only state in the entire Union that did not restrict our movement; Florida, where we liked to drive to on winter break, was so full of prohibitions that it would take us days just to circumvent the counties that forbade our presence). So forgive me for feeling slightly disconcerted: I think I am again being shadowed, for who knows what reason. That, or else Feingold knows he made one big political error.

We forgive thee

What I admire is a nation with a big, forgiving heart. Under Switzerland’s NEW law (and I have to question why it took almost 60 years to enact it, given that mortality rates would act to dwindle the affected population), anyone who was punished for violating Switzerland’s “neutrality” (my quotation marks) during World War II (say for helping in the rescue of Jews), may now receive an official pardon (a very brief paragraph about this here).

In essence, people like Aimée Stauffer-Stitelmann, who had been jailed for several weeks for helping smuggle Jewish children into Switzerland during the War, can be granted a pardon. Of course, those children, now adults, have pardoned Ms. Stauffer-Stitelmann a long time ago, but now we have the Swiss joining in on the forgiveness train. So, is it in the spirit of “forgive and forget?” Like I said, a mark of a country with great humanity and a generous heart.

Again, the Oscars

Columnist Broder from the Washington Post announces his own Oscars for the Democratic Primaries (read it here). He writes the following:

"It's obvious that the John Kerry campaign was the political equivalent of "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." Just as that epic dominated the Oscars, the Massachusetts senator won battle after battle, starting in Iowa and going right through Super Tuesday."

In addition, Broder wishes to hand out the Best director award to Mary Beth Cahill (who took over managing Kerry’s chaotic campaign back in November); Best Actor: goes to John Edwards (no explanation needed—“awesome performance” writes Broder); for Best Supporting Actress we have:

"A tie between Elizabeth Edwards and Teresa Heinz Kerry, who campaigned vigorously and effectively on their own and managed, when on stage with their husbands, to avoid the adoring gaze that once was expected from the candidate's spouse. Smart, independent women, they did much to signal a welcome change in American society. And a special award to Judith Steinberg Dean, who sent the same message simply by sticking to her medical practice."

Finally, Best Supporting Actor: to Ted Kennedy (for working the crowd before a Kerry appearance); Most Gracious Withdrawal: Joe Lieberman (I don’t have to agree with all the awards, do I?); Most Gracious Endorsement: Wes Clark, “the retired general who went to Wisconsin to endorse former Navy lieutenant Kerry and said to the winner: "Sir, request permission to come aboard;"” and at the tail end, the Worst Supporting Actor Award: “Jerry McEntee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who jumped the gun on most other labor leaders in hopes of being the kingmaker in Howard Dean's campaign and then publicly abandoned Dean a week before Wisconsin. Dean had plenty of faults, but he didn't deserve this. As columnist Mark Shields has written, McEntee's double-cross probably scotches whatever hopes he had to become the next president of the AFL-CIO. Loyalty is supposed to mean something in politics and in life, and he failed the test big-time.”

Can I add a few about others in the run for president? Best Animation, Short Subject: Ralph Nader – truly a cartoon performance, one hopes of a short duration; Best Producer: Republican Fundraisers for putting up such sums of money for GWB, part II. With the exception of the Godfather, isn’t it the case that the sequel is always worse than the original? Oh Lord.

The simple life of the Richies

The perennial question at the time of divorce is, should there be an award of spousal support? If so, how much and for how long? If you read court decisions, you’d come away thinking that spousal support is the norm. Moreover, it is awarded both to recognize the contributions of each spouse (not only the income producing one) during marriage, and to respond to her or his need to maintain a lifestyle proximate to that at the time of marriage. The idea is that divorce should not result in the enrichment of one at the cost of the other – i.e. the spouse that’s economically less well positioned to start a life alone. If you talk to divorce attorneys, however, they will tell you that the reality is less predictable and only approximately 20% of spouses walk away with long term awards.

And so how should the divorcing Richies be treated by the courts? CNN reports that Diane Richie is asking for support as a matter of fairness. She has been accustomed to spending lavishly (her monthly expenses include: $1000 for laser hair removal, $20,000 for a visit top to her son at boarding school, $450 on facials, $250 on nails, etc.). It would be a hardship to change her lifestyle. I would not be surprised if she were granted quite a hefty monthly sum. This is in the LA jurisdiction – her expenses are likely to be regarded as fair and reasonable.