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.