Genius is the ability to say a profound thing in a simple way

I was driving in this morning behind a car with a license plate from Iowa (why do I find this relevant?) that had the bumper sticker: “I’d rather be reading Bukowski.” That’s pretty impressive. I’ve seen “I’d rather be dancing” “I’d rather be bird-watching” “I’d rather be surfing” – in fact, it seems people would rather do anything but drive. But reading Bukowski?

I have to think that the person picked up a tome of Bukowski at the writing program at U of Iowa. How else do you get from Des Moines to Bukowski? This is a guy whose books of poetry do not collect dust on your average shelf (including mine), even one with great literary aspirations (not mine). They’re not “pretty” poems, and his life was tough tough tough (apart from being beaten routinely by his dad, he had absolutely the worst case of acne ever seen by the medical profession), nor had he any connection that I know of to academia—that place where self-selected great thinkers determine what is literature and what is not.

But there he is, on a bumper sticker. Bukowski is credited with the statement that “genius is the ability to say profound things in a simple way.” It gives you hope, doesn’t it, that someone out there, every time she is driving her car, would rather be reading Bukowski.

A liberal dose of laughs

Michael Moore (winning the 03 Oscar for best documentary) says he almost did not deliver his anti-GWB political message during last year's ceremonies: too nervous, too much wanting to, as he puts it "just thank them, blow them a kiss and walk off the stage." (quote from today's Cap Times) Instead, as I recall, he got booed off the stage and everyone talked of how inappropriate he had been.

Is it wrong to use the Oscar stage for plugging away at a "Message"? Well now, I almost said 'no' and then I thought of the pleasure of watching Charlton Heston speak his bit. I take it back. All (especially the Charlton Heston part) = highly inappropriate.

Moore says that even if you don't agree with him, at least he tries to be funny in his messages. In truth, he claims, there are many more funny liberals than funny conservatives. This is a good point. Has anyone ever successfully made you keel over with laughter with their bashing of a social welfare program? "I know an old lady, she lived in HUD housing, she had so many children she didn't know what to do, so she had some more children and stayed out of work, and sent them to watch the big-screen TV and charged it to YOU!" Not funny. Not even remotely. In fact, anger-inducing, mud-slinging, cowardly and mean-spirited, but not funny.

On the other hand, try this:

Cheney gets a call from his "boss", W.
"I've got a problem," says W.
"What's the matter?" asks Cheney.
"Well, you told me to keep busy in the Oval Office, so, I got a jigsaw puzzle, but it's too hard. None of the pieces fit together and I can't find any edges."
"What's it a picture of?" asks Cheney.
"A big rooster," replies W.
"All right," sighs Cheney, "I'll come over and have a look."
So he leaves his office and heads over to the Oval Office. W points at the jigsaw on his desk.
Cheney looks at the desk and then turns to W and says, "For crying out loud, Georgie - put the corn flakes back in the box.

Or this:

One night, George W. Bush is awakened by George Washington's ghost in the White House. Bush asks: "George, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?"
"Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did," Washington advises.

The next night, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moves through the dark bedroom. "Tom," W asks, "what is the best thing I could do to help the country?"
"Cut taxes and reduce the size of government," Jefferson advises.

Bush isn't sleeping well the next night, and sees another figure moving in the shadows. It's Abraham Lincoln's ghost. "Abe, what is the best thing I could do to help the country?" Bush asks. Abe answers: "Go see a play."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, ohhhh, I can't stop myself, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (the two real jokes are courtesy of www.jokesnjokes.net).

Dean’s at the Majestic, I’m at home

I went to hear Nader, I listend to Gore, I got an eyeful of Clinton as he stood in front of the Capitol, right there where they sell cheese curds during the summer Farmer’s Market, Clinton the candidate, me listening (or, as I recall, waiting for hours so that I could sort of hear what I could otherwise read lucidly in the paper), taking it all in, watching history being made.

But Dean at the Majestic, tonight at 7? I’ll pass. I was in the Majestic a number of years ago when one still made the effort to search for parking downtown just to catch a run of an indie or a foreign film. I saw it close down as a theater, watched it wither into a ghost of a movie house, once so popular and funky and avant garde, now just an ikon from the past, struggling to reinvent itself (I hear it will open as a dance club later this month?).

Kind of makes you wonder—why DID they pick the Majestic to spotlight Dean? It can’t be a good omen.

Apocalypse charm

Newsweek (to Sofia Coppola): You’ve said that some of your happiest memories are of being a kid on the set of “Apocalypse Now.” That sounds a little weird.

Coppola: I had a great time. I had no idea there were problems. I was riding in the helicopters, and I had the costume department making stuff for my dolls.

[nc: maybe we should reevaluate the efficacy of “bring your daughters to work” day]

Potato, potahhhto, spaghetti, spaghettini..

Potato and orange growers, bread-makers, pasta producers, rice growers -- all are worried about the shifting tide of consumer preferences away from carbs (see NYT today). One frustrated spokesperson for the orange juice industry stated: “no one has EVER gotten fat from drinking too much orange juice.” He could be right, though the issue now is no longer what caused obesity, but how we should go about getting rid of all that accumulated blubber.

It’s interesting to go back to the land of dumplings and gnocchi and spaghettini and see what they’re saying about obesity and carbs. There appears to be an organization in Italy called the “Italian Society of Obesity.” I’m not sure if their goal is to eradicate it or support it, but it is presided over by Professor O.Bosello, a name that just looks fat.

In their newsletter, they talk about how Italy has one of the lowest rates of obesity in Europe (so maybe this group was formed to combat thinness…this sounds incomprehensible to us, I know, what with dried pork rind being an acceptable snack to buy at a gas station, but we have to have enough imagination to contemplate the possibility of an industrialized nation worrying about people not being plump enough). Moreover, though they acknowledge that some studies go so far as to claim that 14% of Italians are overweight, others claim that the figure is closer to 6 – 7% and FALLING.

Are we bored enough yet with the carb thing to switch our attention back to the “Mediterranean Diet?”

Betcha By Golly Wow

While listening to the debate on Public TV following the announcement of the primary results, I remembered a favorite song by the Stylistics. Sometimes a phrase out of a song from 30 years back will click with what is happening and you find yourself humming the accompanying tune until someone tells you to cut it out because it’s annoying.

The discussion was getting quite good – Congressman Clyburn was spectacular on the Edwards phenomenon [why isn’t Clyburn a contender?], and Senator Biden was positively beaming, because Kerry-Edwards were flickering a light at the end of this tunnel (this is what prompted the song lyrics). You could hear him thinking “don’t lose it, whatever you do, don’t lose it, we’ll all unite behind you, you’ve never seen the Democrats so willing to unite [this is true].” Biden worried only that Kerry would snap up the nomination too soon, leaving the Republicans with plenty of time to turn their multi-million dollar fireworks against him. Somebody remarked how interesting it was that Dean paved the way and legitimized a front-line GWB attack, without which this race would not have picked up its brilliant momentum, and having served that role, Dean is now expendable.

Throughout, I was (unbeknownst to me) humming what turned out to be “Betcha By Golly Wow, you’re the one that I’ve been waiting for forever..” (it had different associations back in the 70s) and so eventually I looked up the Stylistics to see what they’re up to. Did you know that you could actually hire the Stylistics these days for your own personal event? I don’t know if people now would appreciate the subtlety of song lyrics like “Betcha By Golly Wow,” but, oh could these guys sing!

With ZERO percent reporting, CNN is projecting Kerry the winner in Arizona

This reminds me of the election day party we had in 1980. It was to be dinner followed by a night of TV and rowdy comments of the football game type: “how about that Carter!” Dinner was over at 8, so were the elections.

The idea of an election day party ceased to be appealing after that: you never knew how long (or how short) they were going to be. Take the year 2000 – it would have been like the caricature of the never-ending Polish wedding. Would we have had to feed the crowd until the middle of December?

Tall and cuddly = a mismatch?

How can you explain the slanderous reporting that blasts away at the warm and fuzzy traits of tall people?? The NYT today says this about Kerry: “He will still never be cuddly. He is too tall, too gaunt, too lantern-jawed, too serious for that. His Iowa caucuses victory speech was solemn and windy, and he sat watching the Super Bowl on Sunday night with a band of firefighters from Fargo, N.D., whose union has endorsed him, tapping his right thumb and forefinger nervously against his teeth without making much effort to converse or connect.”

Is there an expectation that he should have been warm and cuddly with the firefighters?

Growing the pool of money

Krugman’s Op-Ed comment today is based on that tired but neglected truth: if you want something you can’t afford you can only hope for a sale or wait for an inheritance. Meaning: either the price has to come down, or the pool of money has to grow. The administration’s proposed budget relies, as we know, on cuts in discretionary spending. But think of it, what is the source of the deficit to begin with? Krugman writes:

The prime cause of giant budget deficits is a plunge in the federal government's tax take, which fell from 20.9 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2000 to a projected 15.7 percent this year, the lowest share since 1950. About 45 percent of this plunge can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts. The rest reflects the end of the stock market bubble, the still-depressed economy and — probably — growing tax sheltering and evasion...

So what will it take to get the budget deficit under control? Unless Social Security and Medicare are drastically cut — which is, of course, what the right wants — any solution has to include a major increase in revenue.
Many Democrats have called for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts, preserving the "middle class" cuts… that would help, but one hopes politicians realize that it's not enough.

Another major source of revenue could be a crackdown on tax loopholes and tax evasion, which has reached epidemic proportions. In particular, what's going on with the tax on corporate profits? That source of revenue is down, as a percent of G.D.P., to 1930's levels. No, that's not a misprint. And receipts are not growing nearly as fast as one would expect, given an economic recovery that has bypassed workers but given big gains to their employers. An administration that actually tried to make corporations pay their taxes might be able to find $100 billion or more each year.

I don’t even mind that I can never ever find any tax loopholes at all ever when I fill out the IRS forms on April 14th. This is always a source of amusement for others: ha, ha, ha, she’s a lawyer and she can’t find the loopholes, ha ha ha. However, I do mind terribly that last little comment “an administration that actually tried to make corporations pay their taxes.” You mean it doesn’t? And they don’t? I mind.

Middle-of-the-night questions

The phone rings at 1 a.m. and the voice of a person whom I like very much says “there are two huge mice chasing each other around my apartment!”
“I’m so sorry” I tell her, meaning every word.
“What do I do?” she asks, genuinely wanting to know.

But the fact is, I don’t know. I could say “call pest control in the morning and hide all your food in the refrigerator” but that doesn’t address the issue of the mice having a rock’n roll good time right in the middle of her bedroom floor right now.
.
What to do…“Make sure they’re not rats” I want to say, but this seems mean and unhelpful.

Make a cheese trail to the door? Meow quietly and hope they’re mice of the low IQ type? Use a fly swatter? What? Really, nothing comes to mind.

Never assume anything

Today was “common law marriage” day in class. Typically this is a real breather lecture – the doctrinal law is vague and undefined, the cases are "sexy" and involve such notables as William Hurt, David Winfield (it took me years to learn that he was famous), Mick Jagger and Lee Marvin. What do they all have in common? Yes, okay, they’re all “has-beens.” But they also were in relationships where one person (always the woman) claimed a valid union (of sorts) and the other said no. All but Lee Marvin (do you remember “Cat Ballou” with Jane Fonda and Lee?? Crazy..) allegedly had components of a common law marriage.

So the class moved along in a fast and lively way (law students love digressions where you do Mick Jagger and Lee Marvin imitations—try it!), and we got through the boring and mundane as well (“what’s habit and repute and where did it come from?”), and I’m summing up with such terrific doctrines as the “putative spouse doctrine” and the “presumption of the validity of the later marriage” (can you believe how far courts will go to validate an absurdly defective if not outright bigamous marital relationship!), and it’s all cool, and I take my last sip of tea for the day (a must when lecturing first thing in the morning on a winter day), start gathering my papers and texts, and a hand goes up.
“Yes?” I ask with satisfied and confident smile of encouragement.
“What is common law marriage anyway?” she asks.

Stopped me dead in my tracks. I assumed we were all on the same page on that one. Doesn’t everyone know what a common law marriage is? Where was she in the 60s anyway? Oh, not born yet. That’s right.

Yes, well, I did then oblige with a definition, but after the Lee Marvin & Mick Jagger stunts, it seemed anticlimactic.

Assurances and Updates

1. No, I am not Kerry's speech writer, and the fact that the first words uttered by him today on the campaign trail were "how about those Patriots!" does not mean that he and I communicated in any way last night. Whether he blogged here -- that I cannot say.

2. From NBCNews I learn that one reason the FCC is responding to the halftime horror is that it comes at the tail end of a season of (NBC words) "potty mouth" television. Specifically, viewers had been horrified to hear Diane Keaton at the Golden Globes use the "s" word. Did I really miss this? I don't like to think that I tune her out every time she makes an acceptance speech.

The half-crazed halftime of the Super Bowl

A reader wrote: “don’t you wish you had tuned in to see the scandal?” Well now, I actually saw the moment now so richly discussed and savored, on this morning’s Today Show. I was flicking around looking for a weather statement (so how MANY inches of snow are we getting in the end?), and there was Ms. Jackson, only this morning it was with a digitally altered upper-body. Not that my wee non-Super Bowl voice matters in the least, but the pyrotechnics following the “moment” were equally, if not more disturbing.

But the reason I mention all this now is because I just read on CNN that the FCC is launching a “thorough, swift, and immediate” investigation of the incident. Will they hold hearings? Will we see somber politicians examining the garment in question to consider the credibility of the “we did not know” defense? Keep us posted, FCC, we want to read every word. Visuals, re-enactments, etc. would also be welcome.

Some musicians sure do know how to capture the spotlight. Must be in the genes.

The physical but not moral superiority of humans over birds.

In 1979 I bought a bird feeder.
In 1981 I learned that hanging a birdfeeder may 1. domesticate the birds and therefore render them incapable of surviving in the wild 2. spread bird viruses since the feeders are left in an unsanitary state by well-meaning individuals who nonetheless don’t relish the idea of scrubbing a birdfeeder with bleach at least once a month.
In 1982, therefore, I removed the feeder.
In 1999 I noticed that the Audubon Society was promoting bird feeders and I reasoned that they wouldn’t do so if the enterprise was more hazardous than beneficial to the bird population (unless the goal was to reduce the population of sparrows and humming birds, which I doubted).
Welcoming the new millennium with a warm human heart, in 2000 I contemplated buying another feeder (the human heart translates its impulse to the brain, leading to action, at very reduced frequencies come wintertime).
In 2001 I tabled the feeder idea since we were experiencing a severe woodpecker problem, with many holes in our wooden exterior to prove it and the last thing I wanted was to encourage any flying thing anywhere near the house, unless it would be a predator that would once and for all eradicate the woodpecker in a Darwinian, and therefore acceptable in Madison, manner.
In 2003 I was in the pet store buying dog things and once again I was drawn to the feeders: so many, so enticing, so noble. I bought a simple model that seemed never to require cleaning, having no perch, no plastic, nothing where excrement could accumulate. Up it went.
In 2004 I read about the bird flu in Asia; this made me wonder if perhaps birds should be further from, rather than closer to the houses of human beings. But the feeder remains suspended, and it will probably remain thus, until spring comes and I step outside again. It also has long lost its feed, and so the once hope-filled birds are now left to their disappointment as they read the writing on the wall: this house comes equipped with a cold human heart and a strong hand that wields favors in an arbitrary and capricious manner. One of the saddest of human traits is that guilt rarely spurs action.

Moving on, but not on your screen

On January 12 I posted a link to MoveOn’s contest for the best commercial, depicting failed policies of the current administration. It appears that the organization raised enough money to air it during the Super Bowl, but CBS said “no.” Read about it on MoveOn’s web site. Our resident legal expert on media law tells us that CBS was perfectly within its rights to do this. The fact is that CBS had already faced this issue in a law suit in the 70s when a group called Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace sought to force CBS to air one of their issue ads on the radio. The court ruled that nothing in the law compelled the station to run the ad.

Should charities feed the poor?

Ann’s blog , referencing my Sunday post on the Salvation Army (below) suggests that the answer is “not necessarily.” She writes:

Consider too that it is more centrally the role of government to provide the basic economic safety net. Government should not feel free to shift that responsibility onto private charities. And private charities are especially important doing what government shouldn't be doing, especially with respect to providing religion and similar spiritual support for people. Is it wrong to choose spiritual care over food?

This, of course, is true. The economics of life are not the sole determinants of peace and well-being. And if we hold the Salvation Army accountable for spending money on their support of “Christian virtue” (see post, February 1) then why would we not argue that donations to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra should be channeled for the care of the homeless that routinely gather outside the concert hall doors? The moral dimension may be suggested by rephrasing it into the following question: should every gift help feed the poor? I’ll accept a “no” to that.

But I don’t think this is the question that the SA article (spelling out plans for community centers that will refrain from giving out social services and concentrate on teaching the poor how to live moral, good lives) prompted. In my opinion, the difference in the SA case is that the organization holds itself out to also put food on the table and to shelter the homeless. Like it or not, many rely on those services. And, when most people slip that buck into the bucket around the holidays, they do so with the idea that someone will eat and sleep better as a result of their donation.

Though we are left with little concrete knowledge of the donor’s reason for picking the SA for her enormous charitable gift, we can’t help but think that the money MAY have been better spent on bread of the real kind, rather than on preaching about virtue and bread of the abstract sort. Not to suggest that the SA can be anything but a band-aid to a bleeding wound. On the other hand, band-aids can be a very useful thing: they can even stop what is turning out to be a hemorrhage. But that, of course, is just my take on it.

�Lord of the Right Wing�

A reader sent this link to give me a bit of cheer on a Monday morning. The worst thing you can do to yourself is minimize the link after the cartoon is done. The irritating voice wont go away. Ever. Like the real one.

I understand that LOTR fans will particularly appreciate the clip. Update: no, it's hopeless, couldn't get myself to see it, so it's a done deal: I will not have seen LOTR before Feb 29 and I will, therefore, not enjoy the Oscars.

The votes that could make a difference

If every registered Democrat was asked to bring one person who had never voted before to the polls, would that change the number of red v. blue states come November?

Bob Herbert, in his op-ed piece this morning, writes a heartbreakingly vivid picture of elections in a place like South Carolina. He comments:

South Carolina is a state with plenty of poor people. The Bush recovery went right by the Palmetto State without even stopping to wave. "It's like a depression down here," said Wilbur Collins, an unemployed factory worker. "The plants are closing so fast, the workers don't have no place to go."
Parts of South Carolina are economic wastelands. The jobless rate in some counties is approaching 20 percent. The median income for blacks, statewide, is less than $15,000, and for whites, less than $30,000.
The anxiety over the absence of work is pervasive, and in some cases heartbreaking. At a forum attended by all of the Democratic presidential candidates except Joseph Lieberman, a woman named Elaine Johnson told Senator John Edwards about her son, Darius. She said she gave Darius three choices: go to college, get a job or join the military. He tried college, but that didn't work out. "He wasn't ready for college," his mother said. He couldn't find a job. So he joined the Army and was killed in Iraq.

I was listening to the community forum attended by the candidates. Afterwards, off camera, some were asked what they thought of the contenders. There seemed to be the feeling that nothing would change much for the poor of S.Carolina no matter who was on the Democratic ticket. One woman said: “now Bill Clinton, there’s our man – he really understood poor people.”

Though it’s hard to forgive Clinton for the great welfare sell-out, I can see their point. All the candidates made a lot of physical contact with the audience – there were hands empathetically touching arms, hugs, that kind of thing. But you had to wonder how many will remember the forum once next November comes and goes. That, of course, is the cynical voice that keeps voters at home on election day.

The silent voice of poverty is, I think, the one troubling aspect of a political democracy. Still, Herbert remains guardedly optimistic:

The idea is to make low-income voters a force too strong to be ignored. A recent study commissioned by the center showed that small increases in voting by low-income people could be decisive in several strategically important states.
Most Americans are unaware of the extent of the suffering that has fallen on the bottom 20 percent or so of the population. Many low-income Americans are leading lives of grim and sometimes painful determination, struggling to survive from one day to the next. The contrast between the real lives of families sinking beneath the weight of economic distress and the headlines that continue to insist that the economy is doing famously is extraordinary.

To bring out the vote.. there is no reason why in November, S.Carolina should appear blue on the political map. If it does, we wont need to wait for post-election analyses; we’ll know that once again we’ve failed to convince enough people that there is purchasing power in a vote, with a higher probability of cash value than a lottery ticket. The affluent, disproportionately showing up at the polls, have known this for years.

An alternative evening with a groundhog

While 1 billion (world-wide, though I assure you, NOT in Poland) watch the Super Bowl, I'm here picking up tidbits about Groundhog Day folklore. By the time everyone is ready to turn off the set and give a sigh of satisfaction ("how about those Patriots!...") I will have compiled the following data:
- In the past 117 winters, Phil of Punxsutawney PA has seen his shadow 93 times. So Spring has been late more often than not. Charming.
- People come from as far away as England to watch the Phil phenomenon. This makes no sense, since weather is a very local thing.
- The official Groundhog Day website is frightening: the crowds sound like they're ready to lynch the poor animal.
- Jimmy, the Wisconsin groundhog from Sun Prairie, has moved to a new farm. This has caused him much consternation and anguish. Still, you can go to the community senior center for a 6:15 a.m. breakfast tomorrow and be there at sunrise an hour later to check things out for yourself. If you want more info, check this Jimmy site. I was the 2,129th person to visit it this year (the other 2,128 must have done so before the Super Bowl). We should elevate those numbers a bit or we'll lose our status as the 6th most important groundhog watching place in the nation.

Does the Ethicist blog?

I had a question for him, and though it’s too late to hope for a paper reply, maybe I could post it and eventually somehow, through the world of blog-degrees-of-separation, I could get my answer.

Here’s what happened: I googled the Super Bowl, because, in spite of the tone of a January 30th post (below), I do not want to go out today and align myslef with the odd assortment of anti-competitive-sport, or anti-technology-or-TV people who take the principled position of refusing to ever participate in watching something as "mindless" as the Super Bowl. Therefore I wanted to figure out who is playing tonight so I could throw around such comments at the grocery check-out as “Yeah, how do you like those Patriots…” You never really have to have any substantial knowledge of the game to talk sports in our society.

I came across the site where you can vote for favorite Super Bowl ads. That sounded exciting and fun and so I was wondering, is it unethical to by-pass the game and tune in only to the commercial messages? And can I vote, even though I am not really in the spirit of the game and my mindset may be somewhat warped and out of the norm? (I also will not have had 2 sick-packs under my belt and so my idea of what’s funny may be out of kilter). It seems wrong to just look forward to this year’s Bud or FedEx ad, but I’m thinking that if a company spends 2.25 million on a 30 second spot, the content must be worth un-muting your TV for.

Pointing with a nose

Recently, a pop-up appeared telling me that the message pointer that I am using is really boring. It proposed that I consider a FREE pointer, and it displays several intriguing alternatives: a face with a very long nose, a doggie, a candy cane, that kind of thing. I feel properly humiliated with my boring arrow, but I just want to respectfully suggest that if you want to appeal to my inner exciting person, you'll do better than propose that I track the Net with a hot dog, or a caricature of a guy with a deformed nose.

A week in (serious) review

This week, in my Comparative Family Law seminar, we discussed legislative change in the context of increasing cultural pluralism. I brought in the example of Australia, where both indigenous populations (a “hefty” 1% of the total pop these days) and new immigrant groups (almost entirely from South East Asia) adhere to traditions that Western law considers “repugnant” to modern society. Of course, we can also look to Utah, where last week the courts considered a challenge (based on the Lawrence decision) to the long-standing ban on polygamy. Predictably, the couple +one, sought to argue issues of privacy and religious freedom.

Today, the NYT writes about a doctor in Italy who wants to introduce a medically-safe, somewhat benign procedure for women who come from countries such as Somalia and wish to continue their observance of the traditional genital cutting. This has raised angry protest, on both sides of the issue: on the one hand, the modern thought is that no recognition should be given to a tradition that is, after all “repugnant” to our belief in equality and human dignity, on the other hand, it has been said that a tamer procedure would help a great number of girls that are otherwise going to be exposed to the unsafe, horrendously barbaric ritual.

If you scribble down a list of common familial practices and rituals that we would deem illegal in the States, you can make, at the very least, the following observation:
- some are mildly repugnant
- some are moderately repugnant
- some are totally repugnant

This classification is super sophisticated and completely exhaustive and promises to revolutionize the way we think about the world.

It seems to me that arguing in favor of respect for the totally repugnant is a wasted effort. Multiculturalism ought not embrace respect for practices and rituals that run counter to our understanding of what it means to be a social human being. Banning is an option, finding acceptable substitutions is another.

Of course, one person’s repugnant (note the Salvation Army on smoking below) is another’s pleasure. But we needn’t ask ourselves what the hot picks are for total repugnancy. We have, thank heavens, a viable, if severely undermined at the moment, international forum where this discussion can be conducted. Indeed we have such instruments as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that actually address these issues. You can’t escape it. Indiana billboards notwithstanding (“Get us out of the U.N. now!”), we need international organizations to help us toddle along in a civilized manner.

Sunday family topics AGAIN.

So that tidy little sum of $1.5 billion that Kroc left to the Salvation Army (the single largest philanthropic donation to an organization ever)? It's going to the building of new community centers that'll dispense not so much the food and shelter thing (how déclassé!), but advice on how to sustain a marriage (GW, your message is on a roll!), how to enjoy family life, and how to build character and cultivate spirit. When the Commissioner of the Salvation Army was asked how poor people would be able to attend to their souls and their families without food or shelter, he answered that in addition to programs on nutrition (there's a bit of an irony in using of McDonald's fortunes for this), they'll teach poor people how to sit down as a family and enjoy "the fellowship of just being able to sit together." Though without sinning or anything. The Commissioner himself admitted that he had sinned when he was a teen: he was drawn to experimentation and actually had a couple of cigarettes. But that was then.

Democrats, can’t you put this on a billboard?

I learned this from a blogger some days back (these stats are from the WallStJ, Jan.20.04):

Average Annual Real Increases in Domestic Discretionary Spending:

Lyndon Johnson (’65-’69) 4.3% (increase)
Richard Nixon (’70-’75) 6.8%
Gerald Ford (’76-’77) 8.0%
Jimmy Carter (’78-’81) 2.0%
Ronald Reagan (’82-’89) -1.3%
George H.W.Bush (’90-’93) 4.0%
Bill Clinton (’94-01) 2.5%
George W.Bush (02-04) 8.2%

It is amazing how much and how little these figures tell us about the political leaders themselves, or about the economic climate of the times. One could almost create an image of GWB as the benevolent president --were it not for the fact that so many social programs remain under-funded. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to put themselves forward as the fiscal conservatives? Something along the lines of “small spenders with a big heart”? Or maybe put up a billboard or two about the GOP throwing stones in glass houses?

Buyer Beware

Killing an hour with the Wine Spectator, I came across a photo of Portuguese men in the process of squeezing juice out of grapes with their feet. This is from the distinguished port house, Quinta do Crasto, which has now also taken on the production of a red table wine. At $100 a bottle, it kind of knocks my idea of what is defined as “table wine” (for me, table wine means cheap, indeterminate blends sold under the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”). I wish I had the capability of linking to it: the photo shows 8 guys in their underwear doing a sort of can can in a vat of purple grapes. They don’t look too happy about it. Is this a promo, or is it the real thing? If so, is there a disclaimer on the label (as in: wine may contain traces of fungus, epidermis, cuticle, toe-nail, etc)? The Spectator, of course, in its usual staid way says nothing on these burning (for me) issues. Instead it assures us that this is a “state of the art” winery. So this is the state of the art...

Croatia at a discount

I have just received a call from someone selling me Croatia. No kidding. The terms of the sale were stated in a language not entirely familiar to me, but when I doubted that the caller had reached the proper number, she asked in broken English “Are you Nina Camic?” I said yes, she said “I have reached the right person and the right number” and then went back to her (foreign language, possibly Croatian) explanation as to why I should purchase Croatia, cheaply. I believe I also heard “Bosnia” somewhere in the midst of it all, but I am not sure that it was for sale. Perhaps she was denigrating the worth of Bosnia, in favor of Croatia.

Eventually I hung up, but I “star 69”-ed her and now I have a number for anyone to call if they want to purchase Croatia at a good price. I myself did not dial this number because of fears of an unidentifiable nature, but if you’re brave, or if you’re itching for a bargain, here it is: 866 312 7830.

Having your tort and eating it too

If you were a personal injury lawyer, wouldn’t you, for the most part, take cases that had merit? Wouldn’t you prefer to use your time to litigate the ones that juries would find sympathetic? Isn’t it interesting that Edwards, the successful litigator-turned-candidate is now described by some as an over-zealous trial attorney, having pursued mostly cases that held the promise of high jury awards (based presumably on highly emotional, meaning tragic, fact patterns). I don’t typically write about other blogs here, but my colleague Ann has a very nice take (based on NYT stories of this morning) on both sides of the debate.

Since I have been teaching tort law, I have found myself increasingly bewildered as I listen to arguments levied against trial attorneys who prevail in the high-stakes tort cases. After all, the last decades have yielded new standards of strict liability for products causing injuries, they have created an unusually cautious medical establishment (possibly more Caesareans but fewer births with brain injury), they have pushed oil companies to pay for environmental damages (note this week’s punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case – not that Exxon will let it go without an appeal), and pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for marketing drugs they had reason to believe were unsafe (classic instance: DES litigation). Tort damages have typically been limited to recovery of medical bills and economic losses, with a few high-profile awards for emotional distress. Our litigious society is, after all, an uninsured society. Edwards is described as the champion of obstetrics cases that had nothing short of nightmare birthing scenarios... A classic story of a guy with talent and passion, making a buck from successful litigation, finding a tort case where he could pile on the icing for his client (and therefore for himself)--this is a bad thing?

What if instead, Edwards had had these reactions:
“I’m in it for the losers: I only take cases that have little merit or likelihood of success.”
“Medical uncertainty? Oh, okay, I will not use expert evidence that I believe would be favorable to my client’s position, because 10 years hence, it may be proven inadequate.”
“I don’t want to manipulate juries: I will keep my skills at crafting persuasive arguments under control because I don’t want to get the jury thinking that my client should win big time.”

I haven’t taught Professional Responsibility for several years, but let me just say that I think I smell grounds here for attorney censure for unethical behavior.

Raw Menus

I’d not heard of them (raw menus) before this week, but it just goes to show that if you stay to the margins of the restaurant scene for too long, you wont notice when it’ll have turned the corner. Charlie Trotter (the guy with the super innovative, super refined restaurant in Chicago) has paired up with Roxanne Klein (from California, where else) to create the perfect raw menu (it’s all laid out for you in the “Wine Spectator,” but it’s not yet online, so no link). The idea is to dice the food, soak it, freeze it, marinate it, dehydrate it –anything but cook it.

Well now, I’m sure this works well for vegetarians living in warm climates. But I don’t know about those of us living up north who like our pork sizzled and crisp (I’m not talking about me: I can’t remember the last time I ate sizzled and crisped pork). You take your great love out to dinner on a cold January night (tonight would qualify) and you say – “here, try this thinly sliced bleeding-heart radish accompanied by air-dried tomatoes”? Sounds very un-Atkins. And cold.

But maybe I’m being rigid and parochial. Trotter (who, BTW, is a home grown boy, having graduated in Poli Sci from UW) says that he gets at least 2 requests for a raw menu each night. So maybe we’re going to see this more and more? Dinner guests who will tell you: “I only eat raw.” Oh, I can’t wait. Cooking for others has become so much fun!

Apart from tastes, textures, and the usual pandering to the bored and restless palates of the privileged, the raw menu apparently has the added virtue that it is healthy. The morning after, you wake up feeling – healthy. Oh, did I mention that Roxanne Klein's cooking, excuse me, un-cooking of food excludes meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and foods derived from wheat? I’m not even going to comment on that.

Uncrowded urban spaces

When I was a kid, I went to the UN International School in New York. There are many unique and interesting things about that school, but to me, what stood out then was the fact that we were the only school in the entire city that closed on October 24th (in observance of UN Day). This opened up a world of choices. Usually I would take my skates and go to Rockefeller Center. It was both sinful and heavenly to be skating in the middle of the day in a near-empty rink.

Super Bowl Sunday offers a similar chance to mull over this one: what to do when the world is busy doing the Super Bowl thing and you’re not? Hmmmm.. I could:
- go and finally see LOTR in an empty theater and then blog about how the movie is losing its appeal;
- take a party of like-minded friends to a bar and ask them to turn down the TV because the noise is interfering with our conversation;
- go ice-fishing on an empty lake Mendota [no pain, no gain];
- jay-walk on a red light at the intersection of Mineral Point and Gammon;
- go to New York and skate…
By the way, I like spectator sports alright. But in Poland there’s only one "football" (=soccer) and people don’t kill each other trying to get it. They kill each other AFTER the game, if they lost. Or won. Much more civilized.

A little weird?

I asked my Family Law class what policy reasons might there be to prohibit marriage between a woman and her adoptive dad (she was 15 when she was adopted, but 21 when she started a relationship with him, leading actually to her being pregnant by him when she was 22). Except for two or three, most thought such a marriage should be permitted (though through a legal maneuver of first vacating the adoption). Interestingly, they believed that parenting stops at 18 [really??] and therefore he was no longer fulfilling his parental duties.
I reminded them that when Woody Allen wanted to marry Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter (Woody and Mia had been in a pretty stable relationship for years), there was almost complete public condemnation. Someone said “hey, that’s a little weird,” but I wasn’t sure whether they were referring to Woody’s choice of bride or the public condemnation.

Saddled with reviewing best-sellers

Who would even want to be an NYT book critic (see post below) if it means having to slog through this list (from the article today entitled “Best Sellers, on a Scale of Good Read to Good Grief”):

The books reviewed in Janet Maslin's Critic's Notebook article:
"THE LAST JUROR," by John Grisham. Doubleday. $27.95.
"THE PRESENT," by Spencer Johnson. Doubleday. $19.95.
"THE AUTOMATIC MILLIONAIRE," by David Bach. Broadway Books. $19.95.
"THE PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF HUSBANDS," by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. HarperCollins. $24.95.
"EMMA'S SECRET," by Barbara Taylor Bradford. St. Martin's. $24.95.
"PS, I LOVE YOU," by Cecelia Ahern. Hyperion Press. $21.95.
"DIVIDED IN DEATH," by J. D Robb. G.P. Putnam's Sons. $21.95.
"FOR US, THE LIVING," by Robert A. Heinlein. Scribner. $25.
"MR. PARADISE," by Elmore Leonard. William Morrow. $25.95.
"THE SECRET SYMBOLS OF THE DOLLAR BILL," by David Ovason. HarperCollins. $18.95.

It appears the self-help books continue to bulldoze their way into the mass market. Advice-giving is cheap and easy, and we seem to enjoy getting it by the truckload. In the article, we read about the newest best seller written by Spencer Johnson:

In the wake of that land-office success [the author is referring to “Who Moved My Cheese,” about which she says: “written for readers who would find a "Fun With Dick and Jane" primer too demanding”] Mr. Johnson would barely have had to write anything to market more advice. So he hasn't quite written anything in cooking up "The Present." That title is a pun about how the ability to live in the moment is a gift. Present-related wisdom is such that the book's advice can be summed up on a one-page card. This is conveniently included.
Although Mr. Johnson's new book does not particularly acknowledge it, he published something very similar back in the early 1980's, his prepopular days. But that book was called "The Precious Present." Both begin with a sage old man telling a boy that the Present — capital P — is the best thing he can ever receive.
From "The Precious Present":
" `Wow!' the little boy exclaimed. `I hope someone gives me the precious present. Maybe I'll get it for Christmas.' "
From the labor-intensive rewrite:
" `Wow!' the little boy exclaimed, although not fully understanding. `I hope someone gives me The Present someday. Maybe I'll get it for my birthday.' "

Maybe we all just have one idea in us and we recycle it again and again, but I'm going to hope our packaging of it is a little less shabby.

Getting your review published in the NYT…

…You’d think this would be near impossible. I mean, to publish a movie or a restaurant review there, you’d need a list of credentials a mile long, plus at least five personal connections with the top brass in the industry and the paper, correct? Wrong! It turns out you don’t even need to have anything clever to say. Consider this week’s reader review of LOTR:

ONE FILM TO RULE THEM ALL:MAGNIFICENT, January 28, 2004
The final installment of "The Lord of the Rings" is the BEST!!!! It is magnificent!The visual/special effects are unbelievable, the acting wonderful, the content magnificient!!!!You have to watch this movie, and it is soooooo good, you will want to see it 1,000 times over.This movie won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Orginal Score, and Best Original Song in The Golden Globes, and is now the most nominated motion picture of the year:with 11 Academy Award nominations, and probobly 11 Academy Award wins. SEE THIS MOVIE!!! You wont regret it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems that three out of four readers found this review “helpful.”

It’s a conspiracy, that’s what it is.

I think if a Fed Ex pick up box says “last pick up at 6:00p.m.,” it should mean that the Fed Ex picker upper should never ever come even a millisecond before six.

And if I was so good as to sacrifice proofreading my multi-page grant proposal so that I could have it ready to go by 5:54 p.m., just in case the Fed Ex clock did not jive with the rest of the world’s time sequence, then I should be rewarded with a prompt and efficient pick up at 6, just as the heavens intended.

But shoulds/woulds/coulds make little sense in a world that is out to get you.

Let me say, for those who do not have their computer homepage set to the weather in Wisconsin, today we had a high temp of 2 degrees F. That was in the mid-afternoon, when the sun was gunning its engines full blast. Who knows what level of Arctic misery was being inflicted upon us by 5:54 p.m..

But there I stood outside, me and my grant proposal, waiting, because being raised to be suspicious of anything associated with capitalism, I had to see if Fed Ex would really come at 6 [OR THEREAFTER!].

They didn’t come. Or, more likely, they came at 5:53p.m.

Thoughts that were going through my exposed (vanity=no hat) head during the 36 minute wait:

- a fur-coated animal has no chance right now..survival of the fittest means that if I spot one, it turns into a hat.
- Even if I succumb to hypothermia, I will not regret putting off writing the proposal in order to try to get three wins in a row in Spider Solitaire
- I don’t even want this grant, I have enough other work to do at the moment.
- Does anyone still believe that Michael Jackson is innocent?
- Why hasn’t Katie Couric ridden the subway in the last 10 years? If she did (to celebrate today’s 100th anniversary of the subway system in NYC, for instance), and it was rush hour, would everyone get up to give her a seat?
- My poor housebound dog: it's been almost 12 hours for him.
- Should Dean hang it up?

And so on.

In the end I had to drive to the airport Fed Ex station, which, of course, I could have done from the beginning, but one always thinks “if I wait just one more minute, surely they’ll come..”

I call this unfair!

I have, in my mind, the perfect grant proposal. It’s been nestling in my mind for a while. It should be nestling on paper, but for one reason or another it is still only in my mind. It almost made it to paper-form last night, but then my mother phoned and I realized I had yet again neglected to call her this past Sunday (see post, January 18) and therefore I owed her a bit of listening. So no proverbial ink hit the paper.

Today would have been a good day as well to let the words take shape, but in anticipation of the grant writing process, I had put off all student appointments until today, thinking I’d be done with the grant by now. I’m not done, and the students are lining up outside as we speak.

The deadline for the grant is February 1, 2004. Yep, February 1st. It does not take a great mind to figure out by now, as we are approaching the end of January, that February 1st falls on a Sunday. So I called the government office expecting a reprieve. Certainly I can POSTMARK it or FEDEX it by tomorrow, January 30, can’t I?

No, she tells me. The deadline is clearly stated on their fresh and fancy website: February 1, 2004. That means it has to be in their office by tomorrow (Friday, January 30, 2004) afternoon.

So why create the illusion? Why instill unrealistic hope? Can I sue for false advertising? If I fly our to D.C. and slip it under their steel governmental heartless door on Sunday, will they not accept it?

Hitting on the Academy

A reader asked why I failed to write any significant commentary on the Oscar nominations announced yesterday. She insinuated that perhaps I was miffed at LOTR's sweep of 11 nominations. Of course the answer is no. One can't really get miffed at the Academy; after all, they are doing what they're doing to members of their own gang, and the rest of us, unscathed, watch for the sheer entertainment of it all.

I must also admit that I never saw LOTR. One could say that I have an aversion to battles that take place somewhere in "middle earth", and so I view no movies that promise long sequences of fictionalized but nonetheless realistic gore. True, one friend of a friend used the same excuse for avoiding the film "Monster." He said he refused to pay money to see movies where a serial killer takes out human life, one by one. Though I agree that the entertainment value of that is pretty low, at least in the case of serial killers, I feel a social responsibility to occasionally witness what we, as a society, have allowed to grow and fester. I do not believe that there is anything on middle earth that deserves my attention in the same way.

Still, I agree with another reader that doting on an obscure Czech film when the rest of the world is commenting on Diane Keaton is a bit pretentious, and so I will return to my rightful place and say my two words. And the two words are, in fact, about Diane Keaton (hereafter DK): her gloves. When I commented on the gloves she wore to the Globes, someone noted that it is rumored that she has a germ thing. Meaning the gloves are always there as a result of a compulsive aversion to germs. DK has recently denied this, but when you deny rumors of this nature, one suspects there to be a grain of possible truth wedged in there somewhere.

Being human and therefore cruel, the glove thing made me snicker, though in kind deference to DK's mental health issues, I did not immediately rush to post this piece of news on the blog. But today I read in the Times something that made me believe that DK may not be so off the track. It's one of those instances where the rest of us are mindlessly destroying ourselves while the object of our ridicule stands protected. The article is all about the prevalence of germs, and it blatantly states that THE CLEANER YOU ARE,THE MORE GERMS THERE'LL BE IN YOUR KITCHEN!! It goes on to stereotype somewhat, and throw out the possibility that bachelor-slobs actually have a better, germ-free environment with their stacked dishes in the sink and unwiped counter tops, than do we, the compulsive neurotic counter-cleaners.

So hats off to you, DK, for being so visionary, if not altogether my favorite acting personality. If you win an Oscar, wave the gloved hand with pride.

If the times are a changin’, can’t they change already?

The topic for yesterday’s lecture in Family Law was same-sex marriage. I had only 1 hr. 20 min., and I barely managed to lay out the most recent developments that have taken place in the law, ones that may be crucial in setting the course for a legal acceptance or rejection of gay unions. Supreme Court decisions, state Supreme Court decisions, federal acts, state-level legislative efforts – there is a monstrously huge load of material out there these days.

Ten years ago, the same topic (legal context of same-sex unions) could have been be treated in 15 minutes.

Nonetheless, as we know, the bottom line hasn’t changed. For all the legislative and judicial activity, same-sex couples could not then and cannot now obtain a marriage license, never mind having it recognized in sister states. Massachusetts better do something before my next semester so that I can finally end with a better punch line. Otherwise I’ll have to spill over into another class period (each period is only 1 hr 20 min) and still conclude without any definitive answers.

If they gave you money, would you leave?

There is a story in the paper today about the relocation program underway in Siberia, where the Russian government pays residents of cities north of the Arctic Circle to pack their belongings and move south (apparently it’s too expensive to support cities where things basically stay frozen year-round). You’d think that with the constant agony of frost bite and the dreary months of severe light deprivation, most would catch the first plane out (there are no rail or road connections from there to the rest of Russia). But no: in one city (Norilsk), out of 20,000 eligible for the relocation program, only 48 have agreed to go.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. I suppose people don’t like giving up on their communities. Maybe they come to feel a sense of pride for managing life in a dump. And they sing songs and write poems about their squalid, colorless, polluted towns, so that people listening elsewhere begin to think that maybe they should go visit that special little piece of heaven. On a cross-country road trip in the 60s, I made my parents detour to Gary, Indiana because I had just seen the Music Man (“there is just one place, that can light my face..”).

Perhaps we, as a nation with the greatest mobility factor in the world (I just made that up, but I’m sure it’s true), cannot fully appreciate how people elsewhere might be rooted to their landscape. If they gave us money here, in the States --enough money to make it worth our while, most of us WOULD move. One could probably empty out all of Wisconsin within a year for the right price. North Dakota? Less than 6 months. True, in Norilsk the government is not dishing out enough cash to whet the appetite. But still, out of the targeted 20,000, I bet at least 15,000 kind of like the place.

Move over, NYT?

Bloggers (me included) are too quick to link to stories in the New York Times. I mean, it’s a good paper for what it is, but let’s give some local coverage a chance. For instance, how can you not love a headline (Madison Capital Times) that reads today: “Washington Wimps! Four-inch Snow Panics D.C.; Wisconsinites shrug.” [Though given our own paltry 2.2 inches yesterday and the enormous headaches it produced, I think we should reserve our shrug for another time.]

Sometimes, though, our paper gets a little carried away. Take Doug Moe’s column today: the gist of it is that we should just not follow all that advice from newspapers and magazines on how to live our lives. Never mind that if we followed his advice not to follow advice, we’d be caught up in a logical fallacy nightmare where no matter what path you take you wind up in hell.
But say you did decide to get in step behind Doug. Just read this:

“Hey, you. Yeah, you. Reading the newspaper. You are fat, drunk and lazy, and what are you going to do about it?”

What I want to do is go back to the NYT, but let me persevere [words in square brackets belong to me]:

“There has in recent years been a slow but relentless effort to get everyone to live life as if it were one long, and do I mean long, self-improvement course. Straighten up! Eat your vegetables! [I knew Kucinich the vegan didn’t have a chance.] Make sure your fourth-grader speaks three languages! [“the world wants to communicate with us? Let them speak American!”] Don’t smoke! [Watch it, Moe] Save the whales and the rainforest and when you’re done, the ozone layer! [Maybe we should slash and burn and have whale sushi for desert.] Who’s behind this effort? Regulators, bureaucrats [bureaucrats??], various do-gooder groups and individuals.”

Okay, I can’t go any further. I know Doug Moe is well-intentioned and humor is REALLY hard to churn out on a daily basis, but today, I think I’ll just put this aside and pick up the NYT. Oh no. NYT. Maureen Dowd (see post, January 25). Never mind.

There’s hope for late bloomers

Predictable that the Oscar nominations may be, they still bring about surprises, sometimes of a pleasant sort. For instance, I was ENORMOUSLY gratified to read that the Czech film “Zelary" received a nomination for Best Foreign Film. Not because it is filmed in one of the most beautiful regions of Europe – the Beskidy Mountains (these are actually POLISH mountains that sort of spill over into regions of the former Czechoslovakia). Not because it is a sad love story set during World War II. Not because it has the simplicity of a slow-moving film (at least in the first half) that meanders through the daily life of Eliska, the resistance nurse that hides from the Nazis by marrying a villager whose life she saved. Not because the name of the main character is sort of the same as my sister’s.

Why then? Why cheer for this film? Because it is based on a story written by Kveta Legatova.

Don’t know Kveta? No surprise. She was a school teacher, living and working in the Czech countryside. And then she decided to write fiction. At the age of 80 (she is now 84), she published her first book of short stories (the collection is called “Zelary”). The publishing house had such great faith in her that they ran a first print of a meager 400 copies. I did not know you could print such small numbers and still expect to recover costs!

Her book took off, she wrote another (the movie is based on the second one), and she is regarded now among the Czechs as a meteoric success. The film was nominated for the Oscar category by the Czech Republic, but I don’t know that anyone expected it to be picked up for the final cut. Kveta Legatova already received the State Literary Prize (the country’s highest honor) for her book. It would be cool to see “Zelary” land an Oscar.

Reflections

What do you think about when you get stuck for two hours in a parked car in the middle of a snowstorm, unable to move, because every attempt to do so will slide you within millimeters of the car next to you? In my case:
1. University of Arizona has a perfectly fine law school and sociology department. If they call, I say yes.
2. If dog sledding is such a cool hobby in Wisconsin, can't they harness a few mutts and bring them around to pull innocent drivers like me out of trouble?
3. If Wisconsin is so full of tall, Nordic, hulky men, why can’t they for once be in the right place at the right time?
4. If I survive, I will immediately rewrite the post doubting the validity of the study that excluded Madison from the list of congenial places to live in [perhaps the survival thing was an over-dramatization: the parking lot where I was stuck was a mere block away from State Street, our main drag].
5. If we needed brute force to pull vehicles forward, why didn’t we just stay with the horse and carriage thing instead of creating unnecessary dependence on foreign oil?
I have to admit that eventually two very nice (if not hulky nor Nordic) men did come to my rescue. They lifted the end of the car that was spinning out of control, tut-tuting at my imbecile attempts at traction (a handful of pebbles and the branches of a desecrated nearby taxus brevifolia shrub), and positioned me in the proper direction. I was so grateful I didn't even tell them who to vote for in the forthcoming election. Probably they'll pick the tall guy, like everyone else.

Erratum

Yesterday I mentioned in the blog that Streep had stated that “steroids in baseball” is not a burning issue before the nation. She appears to wrong, and I, who agreed with her, must, therefore, be wrong as well. I stand corrected by a constituent from Cheshire CT (Is there something going on in Cheshire that maybe Streep and I don't quite have a pulse on?).

IN GOD THEY TRUST

Another reader suggestion for the list of possibly trivial (meaning – what do these have to do with governing?) presidential imperatives (post, January 23): a candidate for presidential office must have religious faith. Well, okay, I’ll add it as point number 7, but only if we qualify it: a candidate must “profess” adherence to some religious beliefs. Because, in truth, what do we know about their beliefs? It’s not like height, i.e. objectively identifiable (though not so easy in the case of Berlusconi, but let’s not go there now). And historically, isn’t it the case that Lincoln actually did not profess an affiliation to any religious faith? And that Andrew Johnson not only did not claim a religious affiliation, but in fact, never espoused anything that sounded like religion?

As to our Democrats-on-the-run, well, we do know that Dean CLAIMS he had a religious wedding, but since his wife is Jewish (the children were raised in the Jewish faith) and he says he is Christian, it appears that they were actually married before a judge. He does state that he felt it to be a religious ceremony and that religion is an internal, private things and so he can dang well call it religious if he feels like it. Sounds like a stretch, but it does meet the criterion of “professes religious faith,” even though the New Republic called him “one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history.”

And the others? I’ve never seen such a mixed up patchwork of religious affiliations. Gen. Wesley Clark says his father was Jewish, though he himself is a Methodist turned Baptist turned Catholic who attends a Presbyterian church. The Star Telegram says of Edwards: “Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina turned to the Bible after his 16-year-old son, Wade, died in a car accident. But Edwards has been uncomfortable talking about this, saying it's a private family matter.” Lieberman is an Orthdox Jew, the Rev. Al Sharpton is a Pentecostal minister, though he does not have a fixed parish. As for Kerry? According to NPR-- Senator John Kerry is Catholic, though he recently discovered that his paternal grandparents were Jewish. Kerry's grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in Austria in 1873. He changed his name in 1902, converted to Catholicism, and moved to Boston, where he married a woman who had also converted from Judaism to Catholicism. And Kucinich? We needn't bother -- he's too short (see post below), he wont win.

These days, it appears that religion is a must to take the South, so okay, number 7 on my list goes to professing religious faith.

Napoleon wouldn't make it in America

A reader from a small town (possibly a town of disenfranchised small people), commented that my list of presidential imperatives (post, January 23) is woefully incomplete. The following is missing: the candidate must also be tall. I have to confess that I have never paid much attention to the size of candidates for office, or of political leaders in general, maybe because I have never been invited to dinner at the White House (see same post) and so I view them from the perspective of the screen, where all people look like they are of average height.

My (perhaps inadequate) research, however, reveals that my reader is right. First, consider the height of the following successful people in general:

SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, NBA star: 7 feet, 1 inch 4
JIM GOODNIGHT, SAS founder: 6 feet, 5 inches
JOHN WAYNE, actor: 6 feet, 4 inches
TIGER WOODS, golf star: 6 feet, 2 inches
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV host: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRINCE WILLIAM, royal heir: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: between 5'11" and 6', depending on who's reporting
MAYA ANGELOU, poet: 6 feet
NICOLE KIDMAN, actress: 5 feet, 10 inches
DIANE SAWYER, newswoman: 5 feet, 9 inches

Now let's take it into the political domain. A UNC research study on the importance of height reaches the following conclusion:

"not since 1896 have U.S. citizens elected a president whose height was below average (William McKinley, who, at 5 feet 7 inches tall, was ridiculed in the press as 'little boy.')"

So, my astute reader is correct. "Must be tall" joins the list of vital (if trivial) imperatives. And, let me throw out another little piece of research: since the time of modern vote counting (flawed as it may be), only ONE candidate actually won the electoral college even though he was shorter than his opponent: Jimmy Carter took the seat from Ford, even though he was a piddly 5'9" and Ford was 6'1" . (I do understand that G.W. Bush at 5'11" was a tad shorter than Gore at 6'1", but the key word here is "won")

As for the Democratic hopefuls, if you're placing bets on who will carry it, here are the crucial numbers (and therein lies the answer as to how on earth Kerry leapfrogged over Dean in Iowa), straight from the Hill:

At the head of the pack is the gargantuan John Kerry, who stands in at about 6'4" (presumably including the hair). Going down the line is Dick Gephardt at 6'1", then John Edwards at about 6' even. Al Sharpton measures up at about 5'11", Wesley Clark 5'11", Howard Dean about 5'9", Joe Lieberman 5'8", Dennis Kucinich 5'7" and, finally, Carol Moseley Braun at, we'll say, 5'4".

Goats and Lawyers and Meryl Streep

Which story tugs at the heart more? The goat that paid for a girl’s education, or the lawyer who befriended a lonely, dying man? A small percentage in need who get a break, from good lawyers, good goats. From the point of view of political priorities, what do you concentrate your efforts on? Creating fewer in need or more who’ll help? The answer seems obvious, though the current political thinking appears to hold the opposite position.

Moments ago, Meryl Streep said on the Golden Globes (I am WIRED!) that the two biggest problems in America are NOT gay marriage and steroids in sports. It’s not the first time that she is right.

Don’t be fooled: the stuff isn’t any good

A good review is usually a good sign that a book has merit. Unless the review is in the NYT: This from a recent statement by Erlanger:

"To be honest, there's so much s---," the new leader of the daily arts section observes. "Most of the things we praise aren't very good."

Changes are about to take place at the NYT Book Review (see link). For one thing, we shouldn’t count on more reviews of fiction. There isn’t enough of a polemic in reviewing fiction. Making up good things to say about authors and their not-so-good books just isn’t very sexy.

Maureen, I’m going to stop reading you if you don’t cut it out.

Not a great threat, I know. But the trivialization game (post on January 23) continues on the op-ed page today:

..some reporters thought that thrust into her first national television interview, Judy Dean seemed as fragile as Laura in "The Glass Menagerie." At moments on ABC, the couple seemed so far from mainstream American life and so disconnected from each other's careers, they were like characters who had walked into the wrong play.
.. I found Judy Dean, gussied up with unfamiliar lipstick and blush, charming. She seemed as antithetical as possible to the notion of a first lady — and that ain't all bad. I'm not sure I believed her assertion that her high-spirited husband doesn't ever blow his top at home. And it still seems strange that she is so oblivious to the major moments of his campaign: She told Diane Sawyer that she had not seen The Scream the night it happened, which means [nc: here we go again…] she wasn't watching his big speech on election night in Iowa.

I’ll take trivial if it’s laugh-out-loud funny, or part of a blog or something. But in an NYT article that describes the new Dean as a pathetically “declawed, de-clenched, de-Deaned Dean,” Dowd’s jibe at the Deans, the couple, makes her appear to be sharpening her own fangs on yesterday’s pumpkin pie.

Another Sunday: More Family Trivia

My grandmother (1901 – 1994) was the most apolitical person I know. My grandfather (1886 – 1973) was completely immersed in politics. She baked during the night shift and in retirement, made pierogi and nalesniki (blintzes). He organized labor groups, built community centers, and championed organic farming. Did they get along and find the middle ground? Hardly. Poor for the better part of their lives and certainly at the time of their courtship, they may well have qualified for Bush’s aid for marriage counseling. Not that they should have married to begin with. But they were destined to do so: he needed a wife, she needed a husband. They never divorced, but in later years sometimes they lived apart, sometimes together. Their lives defied compartmentalization or labeling. They lived in Poland, then in the US, then after the War, in Poland again. They were unique, as are other partnerships and marital units. Poverty sparked tension; later, a modestly comfortable retirement (it was a fluke, too complicated to explain here) eased the tension considerably. She continued to focus on feeding successive generations of the family, he on his community work. It worked. Sort of. Is there a lesson here?

Call it a liberal incarnation of trickle-down economics: self-sufficiency leads to healthier marriage/partnership, not the other way around. If the marriage mobile dispenses jobs with a decent living wage, I’ll jump on its bandwagon.

New uses for old words

Our limited capacity to invent or imagine or absorb new words often leads us to describe newly emergent circumstances with borrowed words and phrases. Spam is a good example of this (first adopted for trashy emails because someone remembered the Monty Python skit about the real product , appearing in an irritating manner every few seconds and at every juncture).

Listening to NPR’s descriptions of problems with the Mars Rover yesterday gave me a few helpful terms to throw around when my computer isn’t cooperating. For instance, the Rover was described as hiccupping data – taking it in, spitting it out over and over again. Faced with a new kind of computer puzzler and inspired by this very apt description, I wrote a message to tech support about a weblog visitor whose Hungarian domain was hiccupping uncontrollably in and out this site. And today I heard, again on NPR, that the Rover was behaving like a stubborn adolescent. There have been many moments when I have wanted to send smart and sassy Eudora or temperamental Internet Explorer to their room and take away the car keys for the evening. You tell them to do something and they shut down on you and sulk.

Maybe these descriptors will catch on.

Title: A New World Order; Author: G.W.Bush

The essay on the half dozen recent books denouncing Bush’s foreign policy (NYT Sunday Book Review) is brutally honest. We live in a time and place where the new world order has been revolutionized by a cowboy with a mission and with little experience in world affairs and where a growing number of people look at the Bush America with revulsion and dread.

Consider this excerpt from the essay:

Bush's views, Daalder and Lindsay say, came to rest on two fundamental pillars. ''The first was that in a dangerous world the best -- if not the only -- way to ensure America's security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies and international institutions.'' The second was that America ''should aggressively go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.'' Never mind whether Saddam Hussein -- or Yasir Arafat, Iran, Syria or North Korea -- had anything to do with the fall of the twin towers: they were the global evil America was ordained to destroy.

Schmemann (an editor at the IHT), the author of the essay, correctly, I think, perceives that liberals absolutely cannot stomach this zealot. He writes:

It is inevitable that a foreign policy couched in biblical symbols, eschewing subtleties and advanced by Texans, oil-men, neocons and industrialists would be insufferable to liberals, doves, internationalists and New Englanders (conversely, remember what Bill Clinton did to conservatives). One suspects that even the senior George Bush occasionally looks out from his crag at Kennebunkport on the policies of his firstborn with some misgiving. Still, it is difficult to explain the level of loathing that the junior Bush and his government have achieved among otherwise rational liberals. The assaults in these books range widely in theme and quality, and Bush's defenders are likely, with some justification, to dismiss the more strident writers as congenitally allergic to any manifestation of American power. But the urgency with which they sound the alarm requires attention. History is too clear on what unconstrained power can lead to.

In the last paragraph, Schmemann uses the words of one of the authors to deliver the final, devastating condemnation:

Though I have lived abroad for many years and regard myself as hardened to anti-Americanism, I confess I was taken aback to have my country depicted, page after page, book after book, as a dangerous empire in its last throes, as a failure of democracy, as militaristic, violent, hegemonic, evil, callous, arrogant, imperial and cruel. Daalder and Lindsay may be constrained by an American sense of respect for the White House, but they too proclaim Bush's foreign policy fundamentally wrong. It is not only Bush's ''imperious style,'' they write; ''The deeper problem was that the fundamental premise of the Bush revolution -- that America's security rested on an America unbound -- was mistaken.'' The more moving judgment comes from Soros, a Jew from Hungary who lived through both German and Soviet occupation: ''This is not the America I chose as my home.''

For future reference, I do not know where Berlusconi’s daughter is.

My impeccable technological acumen [a joke, for sure] allows me to find that I’ve had some visitors to this blog who needed to locate sites that made reference to the whereabouts of Prime Minister Berlusconi’s daughter. It is true that at least twice I’ve made reference to Berlusconi, and several times, in other posts, I’ve alluded to having daughters. But for the record: I did not even fully remember knowing that Berlusconi had a daughter, and I have no idea where she is. Questions that come to mind:

1. Is someone tracking her down for cruel reasons? Is it an internet stalker of the kind I wrote about on January 16?

2. Is an Italian elementary school English class, learning how to say mother father son daughter, perhaps writing English compositions on Berlusconi and his family? With little Marianna or Giuseppe cheating a little by pulling stuff off the internet?

3. Or, is it someone looking for very specific information, wading through a million Google sites to find what they need? Research can be a frustrating activity and I apologize for being one of those irrelevant sites. [Of course, this post alone will ensure that anyone searching for Berlusconi’s daughter in the future is going to come right back to the Other Side of the Ocean. Sorry once again.]

Can this marriage be saved?

Relax, in the case of the Deans, the answer is yes. Just goes to show, Bush is on the ball with this one: save marriage counseling for the poor. The rich will find a way.

Grooming the Perfect Candidate

Why did I make light of Berlusconi (post January 16, see also NYT today) and the Italians’ obsession with their Prime Minister’s appearance? Surely they can tell us to examine our own back yard. In full remorse, I will now give my complete attention to creating a list of 5 imperatives for a Presidential candidate in the US. I am, unfortunately, almost completely serious. To gain sizable support, a candidate for highest office here must do the following:

1. He (at the outset I may as well say it – the candidate must be a he; therefore, any attempt at gender neutrality in this list would be pointless) must never ever do anything that Leno or Letterman will be able to imitate in a physically exaggerated way, leading the nation to be convulsed with laughter at night, and dead serious in disliking the candidate for it the next morning. [Just to make my own position clear: I do not understand why lack of enthusiasm or an over abundance of enthusiasm in a political speech of ANY candidate should be a defining moment in a race; I don’t get it, I’ll never get it, so please don’t try to explain it to me yet again; many have attempted to justify the plummeting support for Dean “after the scream”, all have failed. I saw the damning speech, it made no impression one way or another, call me politically stunted, I just don’t get it.]

2. He must be someone most Americans would enjoy having over for dinner. [Time after time I have this conversation: “why don’t you like him?” I ask. “I don’t know, he’s just not someone I would feel comfortable with; I wouldn’t enjoy having dinner with him” goes the answer. Is this an outgrowth of viewing this country as a land of opportunity? For the record, Americans please take note: 99.999999999999% of you will NEVER HAVE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 99.98 % will never even see him eat on national television.]

3. He must not appear boring [take a look at the comment on why Gebhardt is out, just today in the NYT. It’s so common to hear this: “he’s boring” “he puts me to sleep” “I can’t stay awake when he talks” “I can’t get myself to listen.” Are these statements about the impact of policies promulgated by the future leader of the country or are they statements about a nation that’s sleep deprived? We've known this for years, “entertaining” trumps “political agenda.”]

4. He must have a spouse that we can all rally behind [grumblings about the inadequacies of Dr. Dean, the wife, drive me insane; see post January 15], and a personal life that rises above the collective sins of our own backyards [Clinton, naturally, will always come to mind here].

5. During debates, he must not sigh (Gore), look with piercing eyes (Clark), cry (remember Muskie?),use complicated words that will make Bush look dumb (many). [a legal blogger recently wrote that in the last elections, SNL made Bush out to be stupid but well-meaning, and Gore to be robotic. In fact, the blogger writes, neither are true, Bush having proven himself to be ruthless, vindictive, and cunning. But note how hard it has been to shed our preconceptions, shaped by so little information, and so much irrelevant ...hogwash (see bacon post, January 21).]

Move over, Italians, we’ve perfected the art of political trivialization.

Deciding the fate of others

I spent the afternoon listening to appeals of university nonresidency determinations. One such student missed being a resident (and therefore paying a fraction for the tuition) by just three weeks. Basically you need to live in the state for a full year prior to your studies to be regarded a resident for tuition purposes. This young man had been taking time out in New Zealand, and could not get a frequent flyer ticket back in time (so he says) to give himself the requisite year. How strictly does one follow the letter of the law? Ever? Sometimes, the law relaxes its boundaries to grant equitable relief to someone unfairly victimized by a strict interpretation of a rule. In this case, the student made such an impassioned plea that the appeals committee, me included, was almost in tears. Should that change anything? What if he had been dorky and inarticulate and not so personable?

FAMILIES IN CRISIS

On NPR, we hear/read the report on the Division of Youth and Family Services in NJ – an agency that made headlines when it was discovered last year that it had neglected to check on the welfare of foster children who had been severely malnourished in their foster home. It is also an agency with a stagnant budget and a 31% increase over the last decade in the number of abuse & neglect cases that it must handle. So that, instead of the optimal 15 – 20 cases per social service worker, the average now reaches somewhere around 100.

Imagine: 100 children to look after in the eight hours that you have in each day. One hundred potential crises that require your attention (for instance, a call indicating that a child is being mistreated in a foster home means that you drop everything and pull the kid out and keep her/him safe until miraculously a new home emerges – hence your 99 other cases are on hold until this crisis is resolved….. until the next crisis requiring, for instance, your appearance in court and a filing of a report on a placement that isn’t working because the foster parent wants out…).

One hundred placements that require periodic, vigilant oversight, one hundred children having you as the only person to ensure that they are not further harmed. That also means more than one hundred parents needing your help in directing them to court-ordered programs, or in providing supervision for visits, or in finding affordable housing… One hundred children for you to look after. Can't even think of it: one hundred, under your care.

Apples and Apples

After a second evening this month at another book club meeting…

[Webster’s definition of junkie: Main Entry: junk•ie
Variant(s): also junky /'j&[ng]-kE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural junk•ies
Date: 1923
1 slang a : a narcotics peddler or addict b : a person who derives inordinate pleasure from or who is dependent on something
2 : a junk dealer]

[definition of book club junkie – let’s pick 1.b]
[for feeding other passions, consider a browse through thejunkie]

…I’m reminded that book clubs have received similar levels of scrutiny to what bloggers now appear to be getting.

A comment from the sociologist, Elizabeth Long, on book clubs:

Far from just an excuse to get together once a month, book clubs are here revealed to be a vital arena for self-formation, one that has as much currency now as it did a century ago.

Interesting.

Let me count the ways..

From the blog of a law student at HLS:

Fun with the State of the Union and a Word Frequency tool I found on the Internet:

1. The most common word used in the State of the Union was "the" -- 284 times.
2. The most common real word was "America" -- 37 times. "American" and "Americans" each 14 times as well.
3. Iraq was said 17 times.
4. Women = 8 Times. Men = 7 Times. A victory for feminism.
5. War = 12; Peace = 4.
6. Terrorists = 10; Friends = 5.
7. Love = 2; Hate = 0
8. Life = 4; Death = 2
9. Seniors = 8; Medicare = 8
10. God = 3; Science = 3
11. Abstinence = 2; Lonely = 2
12. Space = 0
13. Right = 9; Left = 4
14. Long = 4; Members = 5; Sexually = 2
15. Former = 1; Farmers = 1
16. Millons = 6; Billions = 1; Zillions = 0
17. Good = 8; Evil = 1
18. I = 34; You = 49
19. Finish = 1

WEST MEETS EAST

Those of us living in Poland in the 50s, 60s, 70s remember broadcasts on TV where party officials convened and spoke to the public of recent successes and accomplishments. It went something like this:

Party chief (meaning First Secretary of the Polish Communist Party): ..production levels at the steel factories have never been so high [subtext: forced to raise production levels in one or two factories as a result of the frequent closures of antiquated mills and factories].

Room full of party officials and invited representatives from all sectors of society (note representatives from those efficient steel factories and other industrial units) TO MAKE THE POINT, with a few military types thrown in to lend aura of might; all stand and give a round of applause.

Party chief: Our country’s employment picture looks promising, unemployment remains low [subtext: no new jobs are being created, people are working at low wage jobs, contributing to economic inefficiencies and earning just enough to put a dinner on the table once a month]

Room full of party officials (see above) stands up and applause lasts for 9.5 seconds.

Party chief: Our friends abroad welcome the opportunity to increase trade with us [subtext: we wish German and American investors would high tail it over here, but in the mean time we have to be content with the fact that Russians seem to love our perfumes and colorless textiles]

Room full of party officials (see above) stands up and applause lasts for only 8 seconds, but an occasional hoot and cheer is heard as well. Camera pans to members of the military who look tough and in control.

And so on.

Is there a resemblance here, or what?
I have been recently told that my blog at time may make more sense to an American audience than to (the teeny tiny handful of) readers in Poland, and so I will oblige now with an explanation and a comparison.

Yesterday, of course, President Bush addressed the nation. He was dressed in red white and blue (just about) and looked very patriotic. In the audience we saw party officials and a few (color coordinated) members of the military. Bush spoke of accomplishments in a growing economy [unspoken subtext: his economy does not equal the economy of most Americans], encouraging employment statistics [unspoken subtext: at this rate of growth we may earn enough to put dinner on the table once a month], and the many friends America has abroad [unspoken subtext: we wish the French and the Germans would like us, but hey, we’ll make do with Poles and Bulgarians for now. Yes, Bulgarians stand proud: you were part of last night’s Presidential address, though in all honesty it sounded better than it was].

And in the background, '08 Candidate Hilary Clinton (you heard it here) smiled and clapped politely, and Senator Kennedy shook his head is sadness, realizing that George W is in it for FOUR MORE YEARS.

Hogs Improve their Lard with Cold Temps

Now that's a deeply Midwestern title, isn't it?
In the alternative, I could say "Nueske's heads the heap!"

Today's Times gives nice credit to that wonderful slab of bacon, coming right from our back yard (Wittenberg, WI) and enjoyed the world over (New York = the world) in such posh places as Balthazar, Pastis, Le Bernardin, and the Harvard Club. As they say in the article, it's our cold weather that creates the best darn lard in the world (well, second best, but that's just the coastal anti-Wisconsin bias kicking in).

I'm not a great bacon eater, but I love cooking the stuff -- the aromas create a bacon high that makes for a life-time of happy morning memories. Others agree. Linda Lee writes in the NYT piece:

…if you are reading nutritional labels, perhaps bacon is not right for you. Bacon belongs to the hedonist, the throw-caution-to-the-winds sort who would eat a bacon sandwich with a side of bacon.
When people arrived for my party, they said, "I could smell the bacon all the way down to the front door." And they meant it in a good way.
Rob Hurlbut, the president of Niman Ranch, said it best: "Bacon should be listed as an aphrodisiac."

BTW, if you're in Madison, you can pick up Nueske's at Steve's Liquor (for non-Madisonians I know that sounds odd, but our liquor store has undergone several mutations and it now does sell bacon and smoked salmon and who knows what other little surprise). Or at l'Etoile, wrapped around a scallop. Or from Nueske's web site. They say that every batch is individually tasted (employees are all Atkins freaks?), so look for the teeth marks when purchasing your pack.

A letter of rejection?

Sometime in December I submitted an essay I had written, for review at a major publication. It was a long-shot, but sometimes one just feels spunky and bold in this way.

Today I got the letter from the editor. He wrote:

Dear Ms. Aiming-high [not the real name: I want to protect her anonymity; suffice it to say it was not my last name],

Our mutual friend, Merry Sherry [only one of those words is authentic and I wont disclose which one] has sent me your resume.

I have taken the liberty of passing it on to Bill Schmutsky [another attempt at a name disguise by me], our associate managing editor for news administration. Someone on his staff will be in touch to set up a meeting.

Sincerely,

XXX
[Big shot at major publication]

cc: Bill Schmutsky

Now, there are several things that are of interest here:
1. take heart: even the big time publications occasionally put the wrong letter in the wrong envelope.
2. when someone from Bill Schmutsky’s office calls Ms. Aiming-high to set up an appointment, she will be surprised.
3. Bill Schmutsky, of course, assumes that Ms. Aiming-high got the big okay. He was, after all, cc’d on the letter ostensibly sent to her.
4. The big shot publication guy who was the recipient of my humble query letter with manuscript has a habit of sending little private notes deflecting job inquiries from “friends of friends,” and our preoccupation with meritocracy notwithstanding, friends of connected friends give each other a nice leg up in this doggy dog world.
5. I wonder what Ms. Aiming-high thought when she got MY letter, most likely rejecting everything with a blanket “get lost and leave us alone” message?

Was this a walk-out?

The first day of class. 42 semi-attentive faces – half-dozen with lap tops opened, ready for (a game of spider solitaire) note-taking. I begin my introduction to family law. I get through the preliminary stuff: topics covered, reading assignments, etc. We’re on to the trivial now. Or so I thought. I talk about my office hours and 2 students stand up, pack their bags and leave. Is there something inherently offensive about 11 – 12 on Thursdays?

Polish news weekly gives run-down of what Hollywood thinks of Bush

My Warsaw friend, Agnieszka, sent me a link to a Polish news weekly which, in addition to having interesting news of Poland, has a detailed story on what they’re saying about Bush in Hollywood and in the music industry. Now, granted, we may well guess what these guys are saying about him. But the quotes are news to me and so I thought I’d pass them on, straight from this week’s issue of Wprost (title of the article: “the coalition of the hating”):

[the article starts off with a bit of humor:
back in the old days of communist rule, Andropov spoke with Reagan. “In our country,” says Reagan, “we have free speech.” “In our country, we, too, have free speech” retorts Andropov. To which Reagan responds “Everyone in our country can criticize the president of the USA!” Andropov is triumphant. “So what, you think it’s different here? We, too, can criticize the president of the USA!”]

Jessica Lange: “nienawidze go” [“I hate him”]
Barbara Streisand: "Obawiam się przywódców, którzy biją w wojenne bębny, aby doprowadzić obywateli do patriotycznej gorączki" [“I’m terrified of leaders who beat war drums –NC:did I lose something in the translation here??—in order to lead citizens to feverish patriotism”; NC: this is like playing telephone, by the time it comes around again, Barbara will have said that she’s scared because Bush is insisting we play drums to show patriotism]
Woody Harrelson: "Jestem Amerykaninem, którego męczą amerykańskie kłamstwa. To jest rasistowska i imperialistyczna wojna" [“I’m an American—NC:temporarily fluent in Polish, but hey..—who is tortured by American lies. This is a racist and imperialist war.” ]
Raper Moby [the rapper, unfortunately comes out as “raper” when translated into Polish] "Ameryka, w którą wierzymy, nie przeżyje kolejnych czterech lat rządów George'a Busha" [“America, in which we believe, will not survive four more years of George Bush’s rule”]
Don Henley, lider [lead singer] The Eagles: "Muzycy są zobowiązani do zaangażowania się przeciw Bushowi. Jesteśmy przecież obywatelami tego kraju". [“Musicians have a responsibility to be engaged against Bush. We are, after all, citizens of this country.”]
Bruce Springsteen: "Krzyczcie głośniej, jeżeli pragniecie zmiany prezydenta" [during his NY concert “Shout louder if you want a change in presidents”]

THE JOY OF BOOHBAH

Just so you know, great minds on this side of the ocean have been thinking of ways to get the younger generation hoppin’. We don’t want our children and grandchildren to have high glycemic loads like ours (see post January 14). So here’s the newest thinking: if you can make iridescent blobs move wildly on the TV screen, you can make kids exercise their way into a Wesley Clark 5% body-fat frame. Here I am, struggling against all odds, going to the gym every day, and instead, I could have flicked on the set and booobah’d my way into a state where my cells would have been begging for more glycemic work. That’s the positive spin on the new PBS series. The less optimistic: it’s a bunch of iridescent blobs wiggling and looking like the work-out isn’t doing them a bit of good, for pete’s sake. And do you understand the noise accompaniment? Nasty. Enough to make you want to reach for the Skittles.

Future Generation of Lawyers

(just no lawyer jokes, please)

I finished grading the last law exam today (one day ahead of the deadline  ).
Most of the first year students in my Torts class did respectable work. Some were quite outstanding. In my Family Law class, on the other hand, I had a handful of the worst exams that I’d ever seen (in my uninterrupted 10 years, i.e. 20 semesters, of teaching this class). The question was extremely straightforward: a long fact pattern detailing the life of a woman who had one too many marriages (even by Bush's standards), a few too many affairs, and a bunch of marital and nonmarital children. The point was to secure a financially stable future for her and for her children, and to keep the children together.
Here are some literal quotes from exam-takers (fyi, Barbie is the client, Bill is her latest husband of 3 years; a few of the comments are from the same student; square brackets are my own notes):

- “Bill may claim rights to 14 year old (from a previous marriage) as well, even though not the biological father, depending on his relationship with the 14 year old” [a regular Michael Jackson kind of guy!]
- “Courts seem to prefer some sort of joint custody so she’ll have to put up with it”
- “Courts look at domicile and where they have been living because they are concerned with state interest”
- “In Wisconsin, one needs to show declaration of intent before someone to get married.”
- “She could argue that it is not in the best interest of the child for Mona to visit and the trial court could grant her this presumption, however court may override it if they determine their own best interest.”
- “By looking at the specifics of his infidelities and comparing them to effects that they had on Barbie it may be possible to show that, for example Bill had so many affairs that he was reckless and outrageous in regards to Barbie because he put her at a risk of catching an STD and as a result of said behavior Barbie suffered emotional distress” [wait, is this an errant exam from the Torts class?]
- “States want to respect the Full Faith and Credit clause because it promotes comity between the states and discourages forum shopping so that people try to get what they want.”
- [maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate the absurdity of this one:] “Under the Uniform Family Support Act, a state has no jurisdiction to modify child support orders issued by another state that has lost its continuing exclusive jurisdiction.” [so once a state loses jurisdiction, man, it’s gone!]
- “And Barbie is still young, 36. She’s got the world ahead of her. And I am still young so I’m sure I’ll have plenty of legal bills for Barbie in her future.”

Hey, this law stuff isn't that tough! Can't wait to hang that shingle!

THIS ONE'S FOR YOU!!!!

What do the following people have in common?

Janis Joplin
Paul Cezanne
Edgar Allan Poe
Dolly Parton
Michael Crawford
my daughter

yes, of course, great artists all, but also….

….happy birthday!