Happy Birthday, DG!

Today, some small but unknown number of years ago, the world was blessed with the birth of the Ditzy Genius. All good people rejoiced, and said rejoicing continues to this very day. We treasure her wit and wisdom, and hope to never do anything to merit a mention on her enemies list. ;-)

Posted 12:46 PM | Comments (1) | life generally

Hope Is On the Way?

John Edwards gave a pretty fine speech last night (text of speech); I watched the last half or so and I'll admit he had my attention. A lot of it was simply style; the man knows how to captivate an audience. But he said many things that I do hope we'll have a chance to hold him and John Kerry to beginning next January when they're sworn in as the next President and Vice President of the U.S. One of those things was about health care:

We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems. One for people who get the best health care money can buy and then one for everybody else, rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, and HMOs — millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all.

It doesn't have to be that way.

We have a plan that will offer everyone the same health care your Senator has. We can give tax breaks to help pay for your health care. And we will sign into law a real Patients' Bill of Rights so you can make your own health care decisions.

This had special resonance for me because I'd just gotten off the phone w/L., whose father is currently in the hospital. It looks like he's going to be ok, no thanks to our brilliant system of "managed" care. Long story short, he came much too close to dying Tuesday when his HMO tried to tell his doctor how to care for him. The doctor said L.'s dad needed emergency surgery, and that he needed to do it at a larger, nearby hospital. The HMO said, no, that hospital is not part of our network; you'll have to ship him 50 miles away to another hospital where he'll be assigned a new doctor not familiar w/the case. The doctor argued w/the HMO and finally told it, "Fine, I'll move him where you want him to go. But he's going to die on the way and I'm going to help his family sue you."

The HMO backed down. The doctor moved L's dad to the closer hospital, did the surgery, and L.'s dad is now recovering—finally. He's not out of all danger yet, but things are looking much better.

I'm tell this story because it's shocking, horrifying, and absolutely common. People are dealing with this kind of obscene greed from HMOs every single day, and I'm sure people die or suffer needlessly every day because they're not lucky enough to have a doctor who will stand up to the HMO, or because the HMO won't bend no matter how livid the doctor gets. I'm sure all too often the HMO does its cost-benefit analysis and decide, hey, the chance this patient will die is X, and even if this patient dies and we get sued, that will cost less than if we had to do this doctor-recommended procedure for every patient who needed it; therefore, lets gamble w/this patient's life and we'll make more money in the long run. That's the bottom line: Your HMO will murder you if there's money in it. Can you say "pathological pursuit of profit"? If you weren't yet sure what "purely self-interested, incapable of concern for others, amoral, and without conscience" meant, now you know.

And this kind of obscene immorality is happening to everyone—it's probably happened to you, or to someone you know and love. And we put up with it. We swallow it. We complain about it, but we don't demand change. Aren't you proud to be an American?

But it's even worse than I ever knew because this isn't a story about someone w/out a health care plan, or a story about someone w/a low cost, bare bones plan; L.'s dad has (or was supposed to have) one of the best health care plans in the country. He was a lifetime employee of a major corporation and he's got "great" insurance. So we have millions of Americans w/out health care of any sort, we have more millions with really bad budget plans, and now even if you have money, if you have top-of-the-line insurance, you're still not safe from HMOs.

So John Edwards is promising that hope is on the way. He and John Kerry have a plan for health care; they claim they will:

lower family premiums by up to $1,000 a year, cut waste from the system, lower the cost of prescription drugs to provide real relief to seniors, and use targeted tax cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every child.

I don't see how any of that will change the control HMOs have over care or reduce their incentives to trade my health for their profit. Yeah, maybe the Kerry/Edwards plan would make us better off than where we are now, but it seems to me that health care in this country will remain tragically unjust until we put doctors back in charge of health care and take the profit out. Hope may be on the way, but real hope for a real solution still seems a long way off.

Posted 07:00 AM | Comments (8) | election 2004 general politics

Quick Democratic Nation Notes

CSPAN is calling its Democratic convention coverage "Democratic Nation." A few quick convention highlights from where I stand:

• A star is born: Barack Obama delivers a huge speech
• Howard Dean Takes Back the Scream
• Michael Moore Raises Democrats' Temperature
• Everything Joshua Micah Marshall is writing at Talking Points Memo, especially this little snapshot:

  Among Democrats, the rejection of this president is so total, exists on so many different levels, and is so fused into their understanding of all the major issues facing the country, that it doesn't even need to be explicitly evoked. The headline of Susan Page's piece in USA Today reads: "Speakers offer few barbs, try to stay warm and fuzzy." But the primetime speeches were actually brimming with barbs, and rather jagged ones at that. They were just woven into the fabric of the speeches, fused into rough-sketched discussions of policy, or paeans to Kerry.

  I think that's true. I hope it is.
• And of course there are always the aggregators if you have time to sift through the snippets at Technorati, CNN Blogwatch, and Convention Bloggers

On one hand, the convention is so meaningless as to be absurd, plus it verges on some sort of demagoguery to have such an expensive, elaborate, and lengthy rah! rah! event focused so much on one man (Kerry). Wouldn't it be great if the convention was a four-day national discussion about how to improve health care, protect the environment, improve the lives of workers, and create real peace in the world? Oh yeah, that would be great. Wouldn't it be great if we could just hop into a parallel universe anytime we wanted to? Yeah, it sure would.

Posted 06:15 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004

MT Plugin Winners

Six Apart has announced the winners of its Movable Type developer's contest. I'm thrilled to see there's going to be a new MT Blacklist that will be compatible with MT 3.x. Blacklist deserves the first place it won. I had to delete 54 spam comments today alone; something that I never had to do when running MT 2.6 w/Blacklist installed.

One of the second place winners, XSearch/Plus, also looks like a great addition. Even if no one ever uses it besides me (which I think is the case) the search function built into MT leaves a lot to be desired. This new plugin sounds like it will fix a lot of the weaknesses.

I'll also be installing one of the 3rd place winners, Multiblog, which allows you to include content from one blog in another. This should will finally solve a technical annoyance I've had for some time, which is that you don't see updates to the sidebars on this site (ambivalent images and ambits) until I rebuild this page, meaning I can update those "blogs" a zillion times but you'll never know it until I update this one. You hadn't noticed? Yeah, well, it's annoying to me, and that's really what this is all about, isn't it?

Finally, one of the competitors that didn't actually win looks like it should have. TypeMover is a plugin that lets you back up your entire MT installation—comments, trackbacks, templates, everything—rather than just the xml of your posts, which is what MT currently allows. I'll definitely be installing this soon.

Multiblog and Typemover appear to be available now. The others will be coming soon in a "plugin package" with all or several of the winning plugins packaged together. I'm looking forward to it.

Posted 05:59 AM | meta-blogging

Shove It

You know, I'd sort of like to watch the Democratic Convention, but CNN and MSNBC are far more interested in talking about Theresa Heinz Kerry telling a reporter to "shove it!" last night.

Yeah, that really matters. How about this: F#^% yourself, CNN and MSNBC.

If you, too, tire of the tv coverage, you might get more from Convention Bloggers.

Posted 08:46 PM | Comments (1) | election 2004

Blawging Around

For some time (19 weeks, it seems), Notes from the (Legal) Underground has featured a nice little weekly column its esteemed author, Evan Schaeffer, calls the "Weekly Law School Roundup." The latest edition is chock-full of terrific links, such as a list of blawgers who have recently expressed an interest in working as criminal lawyers, including Ichiblog, DG, ambulance chaser, and law v. life. Don't miss it!

Now, in the spirit of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I hereby present a little tour around some of the blawgs I've read recently.

First, Evan also notes that legal weblogs are starting to get more non-web press. As an example of new developments in legal blogs (or "blawgs"), he links to The Blawg Channel, a group blawg written by attorneys who are already prominent blawgers in their own rights. Could be interesting. I'm wondering if my little story is going to seem stale by the time it comes out (probably months from now). I guess that's just how these things go.

In the land of law students, congratulations to Scteino, who is transferring to BC Law and has upgraded (by necessity, it seems) to MT 3.01D.

Congratulations also to new-to-me blawger and self-proclaimed member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" Jeremy Richey, who made the journal at his law school (Southern Illinois University)—congratulations! He also has a good tip on using Wordperfect w/Linux for only $2.49.

Parenthetical Statement is another new-to-me blawg written by a soon-to-be 1L at American University. He's not a cutter, but he is a Star Wars geek and he's supporting Kerry for President.

Learning of another new DC blawger reminds me: We really should try to get together sometime (DC blawgers, that is). Perhaps we could do it before Energy Spatula leaves town?

Speaking of Energy Spatula, she's getting hit on by creepy pizza guys and wondering if OCI is worth her time. I'd tend to say "No," but then, what do I know? Although, Fitz-Hume of Begging the Question offers some good advice along those lines:

Speaking as a government employee, if you are certain that you want to work in government rather than for a law firm, then spend your efforts and energies on something other than OCI and cover letters to employers you don't want to work for. Your time is too valuable to waste on useless cover letters, and the added stress is not worth it. Better instead to spend time working on your grades or trying to get on a law journal or doing well in moot court competitions - all those things that make you more attractive to Uncle Sam.

Sounds good to me. Oh, and speaking of Begging the Question, Millbarge has a great post over there about blog crushes and "speaking blog." How different are our blog (or "blawg") selves from our in-the-flesh selves? It's a good question, but I think others will have to be the judge of that. Oh, but Scheherazade at Stay of Execution posits that blog crushes are unlikely to turn into anything real, but has offered to go to dinner with anyone who would like to convince her otherwise. Something tells me she's going to have more than one taker for that offer.

And quickly:

• Musclehead is reviewing great books (I had no idea Coupland had a new one! I'm a diehard fan ever since Generation X and Microserfs), exposing Bush as a tax and spend conservative, and transferring to Emory Law. Congratulations!
• http://blog.qiken.org/">Letters of Marque takes off on a post from Three Years of Hell and somehow the conversation has something to do with "The Passion," libertarianism, communication, and being good in bed.
• A mi parecer is officially upgrading from 0L (pre-L?) to 1L. I'd recommend trying to enjoy the no-L status as long as you can, but hey, that's just me.
• Legislating Gremlins is selling houses and thinking of moving to Tibet (not seriously, I think).
• The L-Cubed fellas are taking the bar exam in three days, after which I'm guessing their "guest blogging extravaganza" may end. It's been fun, though.

Posted 06:47 AM | Comments (4) | law school meta-blogging

FIP Not For Me

In order to get a J.D. these days, most everyone jumps through a number of similar hoops—the LSAT, applying/selling oneself to schools, deciding which school to attend out of those who accepted you, the socratic method in classes, final exams, skills competitions (mock trial, moot court, journal, etc.), interviews for 1L summer jobs, and more. I've been through all of those now at least once, and many of them I'll have to hop through again inn the coming months. But there's one more hoop that I'm just reaching for the first time: The Fall Interview Program (FIP), also known as OCI (On Campus Interviews).

FIP/OCI is an interesting little ritual. The basic idea is that legal employers (mostly law firms of various sizes and persuasions) tell your school's career services office that they're going to come to campus to interview students for jobs. Some firms interview people for permanent positions, but most come to interview rising 2Ls (people who have completed only their first of three years of law school) for temporary summer jobs. Students compete intensely for these jobs because they're really like extended interviews; if you work in Firm X during your second summer of law school and you do well there, Firm X will often invite you back the following summer (after you've earned your J.D.) to begin a permanent position with the firm.

One way to look at this is that schools are paving the way for their best students to get high-paying jobs. Another way to look at is the schools are whoring their students out to the highest bidder. Oops! Did I say that? ;-)

But however you look at it, FIP/OCI is a big hoop for many students; it's the main reason they work hard their first year, because the firms that interview during FIP/OCI generally want only the creme de la creme.

That's one reason I've been torn about whether to participate in what our school calls FIP: My grades don't put me in the top 10-20 percent that many employers are looking for. Beyond that, I have very little desire to work in a law firm, and firms make up 99% of employers participating in FIP. After spending a few hours researching my options through FIP, I've decided not to participate.

Even the research for FIP is alienating—the firms give eAttorney very little information about themselves, and most say only that they want students with GPAs in the top 10-20% and who are on law review. The least they could do is tell us how much they plan to pay, since that's really what most law students seem to care about, anyway. At least then it's a bit more of a fair and honest deal. I tell you my grades and accomplishments, you tell me what you're going to pay me for them. You make no pretense of caring about me (or anything else) beyond how much money I can make for you; I'll make no pretense of caring about anything beyond how much money you'll pay me. As Tom Hanks kept trying to say in "You've Got Mail" (a crap movie, in most regards): It's just business.

But this business is my life, so I'm not actually that eager to sell it to the highest bidder. It's funny. I've spoken to many firm associates, most of whom are rather miserable. I've listened to career counsellors and experienced attorneys encourage law students to think carefully about their careers and their lives before signing up with a firm. I've watched some of my law school classmates work at firms this summer and quickly learn to hate the firm associate grind—even the pampered version of that most summer associates get. Yet, some huge percentage of law students seem to be working for nothing but the best-paying positions they can land at firms. They're like lambs to the slaughter, except lambs are innocent. How many of these students will wake up 3-5 years from now wondering what the hell they've done with their lives?

But whatever. It's tough to talk about this because so many people I know (and who read this site) are focused on careers in law firms, rather than in public interest law. I understand that different people want different things out of life, but I do wish our society did not constantly teach that money is the best or only arbiter of success and accomplishment. I wish law school required more students to actually work with real people who need help—criminal defendants, the homeless, people without health care, etc.—so that these people and their struggles would no longer be abstract. I think it would be harder to make the bargains required to work in firms then. But if wishes were fishes...

Of course, some people work in law firms and love it. Some also firms do great work that actually does help people and society. It's possible. It happens. I'm just not willing to do the research it would take to find those people and firms.

But I know most law students are going to participate in FIP or OCI or whatever their school calls it, and I wish them all luck. May you find the firm that pays well and does not destroy your soul. And if you find it, please let me know so I can apply there, too. Meanwhile, I'll be spending my time looking and applying elsewhere. For example, coming up with a project that might qualify for a Soros Justice Fellowship looks like a great way to spend some time.

Posted 06:17 AM | Comments (4) | 2L

Bistro Med & The Bourne Supremacy

Bistro Med: We didn't make eat at Pizzeria Paradiso because the wait was too long; instead, we went next door to Bistro Med. L. and I shared an appetizer of "Cigar Borek," which was little flutes of pan-fried phyllo dough filled with a feta-like substance. Good, not great. I also had the BMT Salad—balsamic vinaigrette/basil, fresh mozzarella, and tossed greens (it also featured roasted red peppers). Quite good, though perhaps not quite large enough to serve as a satisfying main course. Overall, it was good, but it didn't make such a great impression I'm in any hurry to go back.

The Bourne Supremacy: If you like action films, and especially if you liked "The Bourne Identity," I'm betting you'll like "The Bourne Supremacy." The film is intricately plotted so that the action fits neatly into the advancing story, rather than just being action for action's sake, as in too many films like this. It's a little predictable by about halfway through, and I don't think Damon does as well in this one as he did in the first—he somehow doesn't seem nearly as tortured and pained as he did last time, even though his character has every reason to be. Also, it's too bad Franka Potente doesn't have a bigger role. But those are minor complaints.

As good as it was, "The Bourne Supremacy" is still a movie you could probably wait to see on DVD. It would make a great Friday or Saturday night brain vacation this fall or winter.

I saw the film at the Georgetown Loews Cineplex, an easy two block walk from Pizzeria Paradiso and Bistro Med. The theater was huge, sold out, and overheated. Also, the sound was not working properly for all but about 10 minutes of the movie—instead of satisfyingly overpowering surround sound, we had to strain to hear even the action sequences because it seemed like the sound was only coming out of a couple of speakers behind the screen. Very disappointing. Next time I'll ask for a refund.

Posted 03:36 PM | Comments (2) | ai movies

I Got Nothin'

That's what John Stewart always says on "The Daily Show": I got nothin'. Of course, he's always got something. I, on the other hand, really do have nothing. It's a summer Saturday. We had a good week at the public defender's office last week: "My" attorney won an important stage in the main case we've been working on, and I managed to make it through the conclusion of our mock trial exercises without embarrassing myself too badly. The most unanimous feedback was that I look and sound trustworthy, cool, and calm; juries will believe what I say. I hope that's true.

So today is kickback day. Tomorrow is catch-up time: financial aid paperwork, fall interview program (I have to decide whether to even participate), and general housecleaning in preparation for a move. That's right: L. and I are moving next month—heading about 10 blocks away so we can save $300/month. So the fun never stops.

But that's tomorrow. Tonight we're off to try the famed Pizzeria Paradiso, followed by a screening of the latest greatest Hollywood blockbuster, The Bourne Supremacy. I do enjoy Matt Damon in tight shirts, don't you?

Posted 05:45 PM | 1L summer

Crime Lab Tour

As part of the summer internship, we visited a local crime lab yesterday where I learned the following:

• Forensic specialists can sometimes determine whether a light bulb (like a headlight) was on or off when a car crashed.
• They can sometimes also tell how fast it was going when it crashed.
• They can sometimes recover a serial number after it's been filed off of a gun. When the serial number is punched on the gun, it disturbs the steel molecules below the actual numbers it punches, so even after you've filed off the visible numbers, disturbed (weakened) molecules remain. The forensics people can use muratic acid (I think) to dissolve those weakened molecules, which often gives them a faint trace of the serial number someone tried to obliterate.
• On the door of the gun lab there was an NRA bumper sticker that read, "Charleton Heston Is My President" next to a big NRA logo. We asked if that was a joke. They didn't think our question was funny.

I also learned a tiny bit about the following databases: NIBIN (guns; compares pictures of cartridge cases), CODIS (dna), AFIS (fingerprints), and IAFIS (the newer fingerprint database via FBI). They played stupid when we asked them if they thought fingerprint evidence was scientific or reliable. It's not. (Sorry, I don't have time to find better links to back up that claim. If you know more about the fingerprint controversy, please share!)

Bottom line: CSI it ain't, but we knew that already, didn't we?

Posted 07:15 AM | Comments (6) | 1L summer

Both Sides?

Goshohmy! That's what one of our clients this summer says when he's surprised by something: Goshohmy! It's really quite a good exclamation, and expresses my surprise that this little post from Monica has generated so many responses, include this latest from Nicole. It started with an offhand comment about Slate, I mentioned Salon, and away we went. So here's a long response to Nicole's excellent long response (you'll have to read what she wrote for this to make sense):

UPDATE: I had the link to Nicole's post wrong. I think it's fixed now.

Like I said, I really don't read Slate. If you say it covers both sides, I'll take your word for it.

But where is "the center" in our country? Is it anywhere near where you'd like to be? If so, you're certainly doing the right thing supporting it. I think (and lots of data supports this) the so-called "center" in our country has shifted dramatically and horribly to the right in the last 30-40 years, so yeah, I'm extremely opposed to that. I think many "politicians who work close to the center" are not so much working as coasting along on the tides of the status quo. Sure they get shit done, but perhaps that's because they only try to do the easy stuff, the stuff nobody cares too much about because, hey, it's close to the center already, no extreme opinions involved, no worries.

And sure conservative issue positions are valid; it would be nice to see some politicians stand up and be conservatives. How about conserving our tax dollars? How about conserving the environment? How about conserving the health of Americans by providing health care for everyone? (By the way, you think 97% of Americans don't want that? Think again. Of course, it all depends on how you phrase your polling question.) What passes for conservatism today is a farce and is in fact among the most profligate agendas ever to hold sway in America. The only thing they want to conserve is their own fat bank accounts, and everyone else can pay the price.

We're living in extremely screwed up times. I'm extremely angry and dismayed about that, and I'm extremely determined to do something about it. I agree that lefties shouldn't insulate themselves from more than half America, but when 99% of the news sources available to me on a daily basis (radio news, newspapers, tv, web) are claiming to give me both sides, I'm not to worried about getting out of touch by reading one or two websites that don't make any such pretense.

Which reminds me: Lots of news outlets claim to give us "both sides" of issues, as if that's all there was. What about side 3, 4, 5 and so on? Very few stories have only two sides; you suggest Salon is extreme, I suggest it's just a 3rd side, and sometimes a 4th or more. What's so bad about that?

And since you asked what purposes so-called "extremism" serves, let me ask you: Whose interests does your dismissal of so-called extremism serve? The interests of the status quo, it seems to me. And like I said, if that's cool with you, then by all means, carry on— digest a steady diet of Slate and other mainstream news sources, support "centrist" politicians, etc. But if you'd like anything about our society and our world to change very much at all, you might want to think again about how you define "extreme" and where you draw the line about what you'll listen to, read, watch, etc.

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune. —Noam Chomsky

But, and so, ok. We're on the same side, really, I think, and I do understand your point that if the only things you say sound so whacky people think you're a freak or a lunatic then you'll never get anything done. That's true. But what if we think of it this way: There's a limited range of acceptable debate in our society. Right now, that range is about an inch wide, and everything outside of that little inch-wide band of acceptability sounds like it's from Neptune. In order for us to have a healthy, happy, productive and prosperous society, that range of debate needs to be much wider. For now, let's aim for doubling it to two inches. How do we do that? I'm not sure, but I bet if more of us are constantly making noises that sound like they're from Neptune, that range of acceptable debate will start to expand. So do you want to spend your life working w/in an inch of acceptability, or would you like to hope for more?

Posted 09:17 PM | general politics

That Journals Thing

DG has rounded up a number of blawgers who deserve congratulations for recently winning spots on their respective law reviews, herself included. So:

Congratulations, everyone!

I'm sure there are many more blawgers out there who have made it on their journals this season, or who will be notified soon that they have. Congratulations to them, as well.

The journal is a big deal for many law students, and while I previously mocked our journal competition, I did enjoy the exercise. That's partly why I was thrilled to learn last Sunday that I did manage to earn a spot on the American Intellectual Property Law Association's quarterly journal. It's not our law review, but it ain't nothin', either. I'm told that this is a great compromise as far as the four journals at GW go because, although a position on the AIPLA journal may not carry the prestige of one on the law review or one of the other journals, it also (reportedly) doesn't require as much time or stress. According to an email from the journal, my workload will consist of three major tasks:

1. Preemption Check. For each article that we consider for publication, we ensure that the subject matter has not been "preempted," i.e. already published. Each article must address a novel issue or take a new twist on something already out there.
2. Compile collection. For each article, our staff is responsible for verifying that the material cited by the author actually exists. We retrieve a hard copy of each source cited and highlight the area referenced by the author. This is to avoid plagiarism and to ensure that we only publish articles grounded in fact.
3. Blue Booking. The article must be BB perfect. In those instances were several blue-booking methods are acceptable, we must ensure that we chose those methods that conform to previous AIPLA issues to ensure consistency.

I assume and hope that we'll also be writing a note at some point. I think the AIPLA journal would be a good place to argue that Lexis and Westlaw are abusive and antisocial uses of intellectual property protections, don't you?

Posted 08:37 AM | Comments (7) | 2L law school

Laramie Learns Ignorance

Web serendipity: Via a link on Scripting News to a cool photo of Arizona lightning, I just stumbled upon Learn Ignorance, a photoblog featuring daily shots of Laramie, Wyoming and environs. Nice!

Yeah, I'm probably biased about how nice this is. I did a lot of my growing up in Laramie, and got my undergrad degree there, plus it's just fairly rare to stumble upon anything from Wyoming—online or off. Last I checked, it was the least populated state in the nation (more cattle than people, I believe), spent more per capita on education than any other state, and its sole university is the highest (elevation-wise) in the nation at around 7,230 feet. Wyoming is a special place in many ways, one that very few people seem to know much about (it's somewhere near the heart of flyover country), so it's great to see such a neat site coming from there. I'm not sure about the name; are we supposed to learn about what we're ignorant of, or is it really encouraging us to be more ignorant?

For more than you ever wanted to know about Wyoming, check out its FedStats Page. Fun facts about Wyoming as compared to D.C. and U.S. averages:

• Percent of population claiming to be "white": 92.1% WY; 30.8% D.C.; 75.1% U.S.
• Median home value: $96,600 WY; $157,200 D.C.; $119,600 U.S.
• Average commute time (minutes): 17.8 WY, 29.7 D.C., 25.5 U.S.
• Median income: $37,892 WY; $40,127 D.C.; $41,194 U.S. Think about that. A good number of people in this country make $60-80k/year, others make over $100k, and still others make millions each year. If $40k is the average, then that means a lot of people are making much less than that.
• Percent of persons below the poverty line: 11.4% WY, 20.2% D.C., 12.4% U.S.
• Persons per square mile: 5.1 WY, 9,316.4 D.C., 79.6 U.S.

Posted 06:28 AM | Comments (7) | life generally

Bad Novel Beginnings: BLFC

We have another winner in the world's premier bad writing contest:

Since 1982 the English Department at San Jose State University has sponsored the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels.

And the winner of 2004 is Dave Zobel who submitted the following:

She resolved to end the love affair with Ramon tonight . . . summarily, like Martha Stewart ripping the sand vein out of a shrimp's tail . . . though the term "love affair" now struck her as a ridiculous euphemism . . . not unlike "sand vein," which is after all an intestine, not a vein . . . and that tarry substance inside certainly isn't sand . . . and that brought her back to Ramon.

The ellipses must have clinched it, I'm thinking.

The rest of the honorable mentions and runners up and winners in various categories are all well worth reading. There's so much terrific badness there I can't imagine how the judges choose the winner every year.

Posted 06:35 AM | ai books

Inside Survivor Vanuatu

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from an email forward from a friend of a friend who is working in the South Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu, where the next version of "Survivor" (Survivor 9) is being filmed. It's a good reminder that almost nothing on tv—perhaps especially "reality" tv—is what it seems.

The big news for Americans in Vanuatu these days is about the “Survivor” show. The series that will air in September is currently being shot here, and everyone is excited about it. Since we are Americans, people ask us a lot of questions, as if we were experts on all things American. We have practically no answers at all for the local people, since we have never even seen the show, but we can at least share a little bit with you of how things are going.

When we first heard that the show would be on location here, we tried to guess exactly where it would be filmed. There are some very rugged, very remote areas in Vanuatu, and we each had our favorite candidate for the locale: the ash plain on Ambrym, the crater lakes of Gaua, the rocky cliffs of Futuna. It turns out that the shoot is on our island, just down the road! We have friends at the villages which own the chosen sites, and we drive past them every time we go to the capital city for shopping. We think that perhaps the show tends to exaggerate the wildness of the sites chosen. (The alternate explanation is that Onesua is a lot more remote than we thought!) During the two months of shooting, the cast and crew will spend five days on Tanna, where the volcano scenes will be shot. The rest of the film will apparently be from Efate Island, where we live, and two little offshore islands, where we have visited.

The places where the actual shooting is being done are not untouched jungle; they are village gardens in the fallow phase of slash and burn agriculture. Of course, they look like jungle to Americans, since the bush just grows up wild. When you see the show it will probably give you a good idea of what our area looks like, but you should remember that you are seeing the Pacific equivalent of stubble in a wheat field.

There have been some hard feelings created. Villages still mostly run on a gift economy; you ask a favor and it tends to be granted, but you incur an obligation in return. America does not share this approach, and evidently the Survivor folks didn’t really bother too much to adapt. They struck deals with the local villages, including paying them not to fish on the reefs and not to sail their canoes from the offshore islands to Efate. They didn’t want the film to have Ni-Vanuatu in the background, going about their daily business, so the agreements were signed and that was that. American contracts do not allow a lot of flexibility, and the villagers don’t understand that. “Survivor” evidently tried to benefit local businesses by contracting food supplies with them, but when the first delivery was late, they cancelled. All supplies are now being imported, even eggs and vegetables, and the local people are not earning the income that they had expected, but they are still required to keep from fishing or going to market.

Meanwhile, security is very tight. The area is patrolled by men wearing camouflage and carrying radios, and they are enforcing a no-go zone, which was quite illegal at first, since they didn’t go through the proper channels of giving advance notice for shipping. Some New Zealander friends of ours, just as obnoxious and confrontational as Americans are, made a point of sailing a flotilla of yachts into the bay in the middle of filming, just to protest the point. ‘Survivor’ responded by getting everything properly announced and publicized, and the yachts went on their way.

Another issue has been the fact that this is an oral culture, where you sit and talk about everything before you even start to get down to business. A local newspaper columnist writes,

“People in Survivors are acting as though they own the place. They should be told this is Vanuatu and not the USA. They have advised the Tourism office that if local media want to get any news or interviews we will have to pay for it. Talk about arrogant.”

The front page of the newspaper of July 3 carried a political cartoon where a crewcut, sunglasses-wearing director says, “In order to win that one million dollars, you “Survivor” contestants must survive 39 days without electricity, running water, hot showers and telephones – completely cut off from the modern world!” In the background, a Ni-Vanuatu woman says, “What’s so special about that? We island women live every day of our lives that way!”

This could give a person a whole new perspective on ‘reality’ TV. What’s ‘real? The carefully edited contests or daily lives? In my opinion, there will be nothing in the contestants’ games as challenging as this whole thing is for the villagers. They try to understand a world where frivolous wastes of wealth exist side-by-side with people who could use those wasted resources, and they try to reflect on a world where cultures clash.

There is some monetary benefit for Vanuatu from the American money being spent here for these two months, and there may be some long-range benefit in increased tourism from the publicity. I’m not sure that it will offset the ill will caused by the filming. Vanuatu is a great place to be an American, since we saved the islands from slavery by stopping the Japanese offensive in World War II. The New Hebrides, as Vanuatu was called then, was a major staging area for the critical battles of the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal, and thousands of US soldiers were stationed here. The old people remember American friendliness, American generosity, and American sacrifice. That is a nice list of values to export! The current generation of Ni-Vanuatu, thanks to “Survivor,” is getting a very different picture. I’m afraid that they see us more like millipedes [a big nuisance in Vanuatu].

Go ahead and watch the show if you like. Maybe it’s fun entertainment. But maybe it would be better to think about the real issues involved, side-by-side with the villagers. The TV producers could have done a lot better job; why not have contests in making cement blocks and building a new clinic? Why not see which contestant can learn the largest local vocabulary or the most intricate traditional dance? Why not compete in teams of illustrators/authors/translators to produce the best textbook for the local primary school? That would be reality TV. I could cheer those heroes.

Posted 08:24 PM | tv land

The Killers Are Killer

Before leaving for vacation a few weeks ago I loaded up the iPod w/some new music, including "Hot Fuss" by The Killers. After listening to the album round and round for a dozen times or more, I just wanted to say: They really do rock.

Thanks to Cinnamon and everyone else for the recommendations.

That is all.

Posted 01:21 PM | Comments (5) | life generally

Grad Union News Good/Bad

Graduate students at American universities have been trying to form unions for more than a decade, largely because universities have shifted more of the undergrad teaching burden from tenured or tenure-track faculty to grad students. Those students have had some success, but it's been a long struggle. Last week there were two major developments in this effort.

The good news: The Graduate Employees' Organization (GEO) reached an agreement on a contract with the University of Illinois. (See also News Gazoo story.) As a former member of this union who worked on the campaign for recognition, I couldn't be more pleased. Congratulations, GEO!

The bad news: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled last week that grad students at private institutions can't form unions because they're students, not employees. The logic of this is just ridiculous. Why would being a student preclude me from being an employee? If I take classes from a school, and also work for pay at the school, aren't I both a student and employee? Yes. As an employee in the united states, don't I have a right to form a union? Roughly, Yes:

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing relations between unions and employers in the private sector. The statute guarantees the right of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers or to refrain from all such activity. Generally applying to all employers involved in interstate commerce--other than airlines, railroads, agriculture, and government--the Act implements the national labor policy of assuring free choice and encouraging collective bargaining as a means of maintaining industrial peace. Through the years, Congress has amended the Act and the Board and courts have developed a body of law drawn from the statute.

Witness the power of "an independent federal agency" — it doesn't matter what Congress says the law is because the NLRB can "administer" that law however it sees fit. This is why I'm looking forward to taking Administrative Law this fall—so I can learn the most effective ways to challenge and change decisions of agencies like the NLRB.

Posted 12:43 PM | Comments (2) | general politics

Amazon Push Blogs

Amazon is currently beta-testing Plogs:

Your Amazon.com Plog is a diary of events that will enhance your shopping experience, helping you discover products that have just been released, track changes to your orders, and many other things. Just like a blog, your Plog is sorted in reverse chronological order. When we think we have something interesting or important to tell you, we'll post it to your Plog.

In practice, if you're signed in to your Amazon account, the "plog" will turn your Amazon index page into a blog written by Amazon and featuring things they think you're likely to buy, based on your past purchases.

I'm sure this isn't the first time a major corporate presence has tried to co-opt the blog form for profit, but it's the most insidious for me. At best, this will be just one more way Amazon lets interested customers know about items they "want" to buy—especially if they start giving you the option to subscribe to your "plog" via RSS. At worst, this could be the death of the blog as a form of communication on the web; if average surfers (who aren't yet really aware of blogs) begin to associate "blog" with "just another marketing ploy," they'll lose interest fast.

The reaction from Defective Yeti—one of the blogs listed on Amazon's plog page—is right on the money:

A Plog, as near as I can tell, is a "personalized log," and is like a "blog" except you can't personalize it. Also, instead of you writing it and other people reading it, robots write it and you read it. Also, instead of being open to the world, only you can see it. But aside from that, it's pretty much nothing like a blog.

As far as I'm concerned, Amazon can take its plog and shove it. If I don't already know I "want" or "need" something w/out Amazon telling me about it, then I probably don't really want or need it, do I? That's what I thought.

Editor's Note: Funny. I'm unable to post this entry right now because, guess what, the MT-Amazon and MT-Bookqueue extensions that power the sidebar books feature of this site are getting an XML error from Amazon. Again I'm reminded that I seriously need to redesign this page to eliminate those two plugins!

Posted 01:08 PM | meta-blogging

Pathological Pursuit of Profit

After reading the book a couple of weeks ago, we saw the documentary film version of The Corporation last night. Of the two, I recommend the book. It's a quick read, very accessible, and it's packed with terrific nuggets of information. By comparison the movie seemed overly long, depressing, and at times downright boring. To be fair, I'm probably being harsh on the movie both because I've read the book and because I had such high hopes. After reading the book, I hoped the movie would be a pithy, riveting, incisive distillation of the book, a highly accessible and even entertaining vehicle that would carry the book's main message—corporations are, by definition, anti-democratic and antisocial—to a wide popular audience. And while the movie is great and I highly recommend it, I fear it's a little too much on the spinach side of cinema to really reach or convince large numbers of people.

The filmmakers have provided an excellent summary of the movie so you can get the gist of what it's about if it's not coming to your area. (It's only in very limited release right now.) The movie is long almost by necessity; the negative effects of the modern corporation reach so many aspects of the world and of society that even at over two hours long the movie could only skim the surface of a few of them. Because it was so packed with information, it's hard to pick out highlights. Still, one scene stands out in my memory as a compelling reason to pay attention to the issue of the pathological pursuit of profit that is the sole reason for the corporation's existence. That reason comes from Ray Anderson, the Chairman of Interface, Inc. (a carpet company). He compares our current situation to the early stages of human flight where people would stand on the edge of a cliff with some wings strapped to their backs and jump off, hoping they could fly. If the cliff was high enough, the jumper might initially think he was flying, but really he was just in freefall, rushing to his death. According to Anderson, the world is in just such a position today, except we're all the jumper, and when we gave corporations the rights of a person we jumped off a huge cliff. Our wings are the corporate/capitalist system that we think is flying, but really we're in freefall. It's easy to think we're still flying because the cliff was so high, but some people can see farther ahead and they see the ground rushing up to meet us and they know we're plummeting to our destruction. Those are the people (like the makers of this film) who are shouting warnings and working to wake people up to the fact that the corporate takeover of life on earth is not sustainable. In fact, the pathological pursuit of profit is rushing us headlong to the end of life as we know it.

I guess I'm a sucker for extended metaphors.

But like I said, the book is better than the movie. It covers much the same ground, but adds more depth, such as describing how the dominant position of the corporation in society has created an entirely new kind of person:

"The corporation has essentially replaced the church in terms of who you are," says Edison Schools financier Michael Moe. It wants the same thing as the church, he says: "obedient constituents that . . . pay [their] dues and follow the rules." Human nature is neither static nor universal. It tends to reflect the social orders people inhabit. Throughout history, dominant institutions have established roles and identities for their subjects that meshed with their own institutional natures, needs and interests: God-fearing subjects for the church, lords and serfs for feudal orders, citizens for democratic governments (134).

And what kind of subjects does the corporation want? Subjects like itself: "purely self-interested, incapable of concern for others, amoral, and without conscience" (134). Sounds a lot like those Enron traders caught on tape (also here), doesn't it?

The book also contains a great indictment of one of the darling little ploys of business— "deregulation":

Deregulation . . . rests on the suspect premise that corporations will respect social and environmental interests without being compelled by government to do so. No one would seriously suggest that individuals should regulate themselves, that laws against murder, assault, and theft are unnecessary because people are socially responsible. Yet oddly, we are asked to believe that corporate persons—institutional psychopaths who lack any sense of moral conviction and who have the power and motivation to cause harm and devastation in the world—should be left free to govern themselves (110-111).

Corporations further argue that they should be free to govern themselves because they're already just helpless pawns in the hands of the all-powerful control of "the market." They say, "don't regulate us; the market will tell us what we can and can't do because if we behave badly then people won't buy our stuff." And while this sounds very nice and many people are taken in by it, it's really an argument for selling democracy to the highest bidder.

One premise of democracy is that, as citizens, all people are equal, at least within the political sphere. Everyone has one vote, regardless of his or her wealth or social position, and that means, in relation to corporations, that every citizen has an equal say about how these powerful entities must behave. Moving regulation of corporations from government to the market immunizes them to the effects of citizens' participation in the political process and leaves their control to an institution where one dollar—not one person—equals one vote. "At least in democracy each person is formally equally," says political economist Elaine Bernard, executive director of the Trade Union Program at Harvard University. "The humblest citizen, the most prestigious citizen still only has one vote. But when we move that power over to the marketplace, the humblest and the wealthiest are totally asymmetrical. And one has such immense power that they can literally crush the other completely and utterly and fully. So that's one of the reasons historically we've always felt the need to regulate markets." (145-6).

Something to think about the next time the FCC tries to decrease regulations on media ownership, for example.

Both the book and the movie end with gestures of hope that active citizens who care and are paying attention have some ability to take their society and the world back from corporation control, and return it to citizen control. And that's really the bottom line of these pieces: Corporations are, by definition and by law, antisocial. They have become frighteningly powerful. However, they are not unstoppable, and we are not helpless against them. I hope that last part is true, because if we're rushing headlong to disaster, the ground seems to be getting closer everyday.

Posted 12:10 PM | Comments (5) | ai books ai movies

Traffic Court

Traffic court was packet yesterday, with 246 cases on the docket. The judge was moving at a breathless pace, with everyone else (the clerk, deputies, attorneys, and accused) hopping to try to keep up. I wasn't the only one sitting on the edge of my seat trying not to miss any of the action. Many of the cases were disposed of quickly with guilty pleas and fines, no-show witnesses (in which case the judge often dismissed the charge entirely), or traffic school as a "punishment" instead of a fine. As most people perhaps know already, traffic school is a great option if you just have a speeding ticket or something and it's your first one or your first in a long time. If you go to court on a traffic ticket, it never hurts to ask if you could take traffic school and see if that will help you out.

Watching traffic court has taught me that a "guilty with explanation" plea rarely helps any more than a "guilty" plea—the judge may listen to your explanation, but she's probably not hearing it, meaning it won't make your sentence any lighter. I guess sometimes it does, but most of the time guilty is guilty, and the judge doesn't really care beyond that. With 214 cases to dispose of, a judge doesn't have time to care.

Another thing I've learned is that you really really should know the potential penalty you're facing before you decide to plead guilty. I saw a guy yesterday waive his right to a lawyer, then plead guilty to driving on a suspended license, then get a recommended 60 days in jail (w/30 suspended, so only 30 to actually serve) and a year additional license suspension! The guy's head was spinning when he heard the state asking for that sentence, and he begged for a lawyer. The judge had mercy on him and decided to continue the case and give the guy a chance to find a lawyer before he got thrown in jail. That was very nice of the judge, but she didn't have to do that—the guy had signed a waiver of his right to an attorney, then he found he was helpless and facing a relatively huge penalty. (Thirty days in jail is no laughing matter.)

So those are my little lessons in traffic court: Just because you think your offense isn't serious, don't think the judge or the state will see it your way. Whatever your excuses, they probably don't care. Know what you're getting into before you go to court, or get a lawyer who does.

A final lesson that's really a reminder: You just don't want to get caught up in the justice system if there's anything you can do to keep from it. Perhaps it's as just as it can be, but that's not very just, so you don't want to take your chances. Keep your record clean, or your whole life could be sent down the drain b/c the law just doesn't have to care about your complex circumstances. It may care, but it doesn't have to. Is it possible that the two most merciless systems in our society are the justice system and the consumer credit system? You mess up a little in either one, you might be paying for it the rest of your life. Gotta love that.

Posted 05:59 AM | Comments (3) | 1L summer

Reality TV Peeps Should Blog

Last night Bravo aired an episode of Queer Eye UK, which is eerily like the American version—especially the opening trailer, which features the British queer eyes doing exactly what the American ones do in that little montage. Does it have to be so identical?

But that aside, the show's subject was a guy who wanted to become a television personality, so the Queer Eyes gave him a website to help him look more professional to potential employers. That's cool, but I think the queer eyes dropped the ball a bit when they didn't give their project a blog. Today, if you go to Barra Fitzgibbon's site, it doesn't look very up to date. The Queer Eye episode on which he appeared was probably filmed weeks or months ago, and it ended with the strong suggestion that his tv career was about to really take off, yet Fitzgibbon's website offers no updates about what has happened to his tv career since. I'm guessing that's because Fitzgibbon doesn't know how to update the site, but if it had been built around a blog, he could have been updating it regularly with ease. Next time, Queer Eyes, give your guy a blog!

More generally, I suggest to anyone who goes on a reality tv show who would like to "capitalize" somehow on the 15 minutes of fame it provides: Get yourself a blog! Fans of the show you were on—your fans!—might love to get to know you better, and to follow your post-show progress. I'm not talking some PR site where you just promote yourself relentlessly, but a real, honest blog where you talk about your life, and where part of your life happens to be that you were on a reality tv show. And even if you don't want to parlay your reality show experience into some sort of film or television or celebrity career, you could still connect w/fans and possibly have some fun w/a blog. With Fox set to kick off an all-reality-tv channel, I'm betting the reality folks w/blogs will be the ones w/the greatest post-show success.

Posted 05:52 AM | Comments (1) | meta-blogging tv land

Want a "job" blogging?

From the email inbox:

The American Constitution Society is seeking volunteer Blog Editors to research and write content, moderate comments and edit submissions on a progressive blog monitoring legal news and public policy. Blog editors will interact with ACS staff and distinguished guest bloggers to create a national forum for progressive legal and policy discussion. Blog Editors will be expected to contribute approximately 3-5 hours a week to writing, editing and moderation. Their principal duty will be assuming responsibility for all blog content for one day each week, including daily news roundups and breaking news summaries.

It's about time the ACS got a blog. I'm not sure how all this volunteer blog editor business will work, but at least it's a start.

Posted 06:56 AM | Comments (2) | law school meta-blogging

No Change

Sad. While Bush attacks Kerry for "values" and continues trying to say his war was justified, it's very disheartening to note that this post from a year ago could almost have been written today:

Yubbledew and Co. are still on the loose trying to salvage and extend their "scare and plunder" methods of governance. Currently they're trying to squirm out of the mess they're in by blaming George Tenent and by asserting that they didn't, technically, lie. "We got the info from Britain, and Britain did put that info in a report, which is all we said. We didn't say it was true, we just said it was a claim made by British intelligence." So why does that make it any better?

Lies upon lies upon lies. Oh, but not technically, in the strictest sense, lies. They haven't gone so far as to ponder what the definition of "is" is, but they've done everything but. And again, who died when Clinton lied?

Oh, and while I'm on the general subject of our fearless leader and his war: Advocates of War Now Profit from Iraq Reconstruction [thanks to the new BushRecall.org blog for the link]

Posted 06:38 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004 general politics

Police Humor

The police department was kind enough to give me an instruction sheet when I signed up for the ride-along so I'd know where to go, what to wear, hot to behave, what to expect generally. It contained very helpful information, and I appreciated it, but the "what not to wear" advice is a bit cute:

Please dress comfortably and dress appropriate for the weather. Ladies, we do ask that you not wear short shorts and no halter-tops. Men, so that we not exclude you, if you are so inclined to wear either, please refrain from wearing these items as well.

Right. Why not just say "no short shorts or halter tops" and leave the gender out of it? I think this, too, provides another little hint into the mind of the typical police department or police force. It displays and old-fashioned sensibility about how things are or ought to be, and a sort of alienation from or bewildered misunderstanding of the way the world works today.

Oh, but they're on the technological cutting edge.

Posted 06:16 AM | 1L summer

Messing With "Them"

The police ride-along was fascinating. It was just what it sounds like—I rode along w/an officer as he did his daily duties. It wasn't a very exciting or busy day, but even the routine calls were interesting since I'd never been on any call at all before. We responded to:

• A shoplifting call where a woman allegedly stuffed over $100 worth of steak into her purse and walked out of a grocery store. The officer said he recently busted someone who pushed an entire cartfull of merchandise out to her car w/out paying for it. If you're going to shoplift, do it in style. (But note: If the value of the stuff you're taking exceeds a certain amount—$200 in our jursidiction—you'll be charged w/a felony instead of a misdemeanor). No arrest; suspect long gone.
• A call about a suspicious person where we found a guy sleeping in the middle of a restaurant parking lot, just laying on the asphalt between parked cars. The guy said he had a mental disability and was on his way to see his counsellor when he just got distracted and decided he wanted a warm place to sleep. Apparently the asphalt fit the bill. Very strange. No arrest—the cops were pretty nice to the guy.
• A call about a woman asking a parking cop where she could buy crack. I kid you not. When we got there and talked to her, it seemed fairly clear she was high. No arrest; just threats.
• A call about a 13-year-old boy threatening a 9-year-old boy to get the younger kid to give him money. What can the police do about this? Next to nothing, but that doesn't stop them from trying. No arrest; just threats.

So no, nothing too exciting. We also spent close to two hours filing a report (fun! not.), and lots of time driving around "messing with" homeless people and people who like to hang out on park benches and street corners.

I have some thoughts on the experience that I don't have time to share, including the awesome technology at the disposal of the police (they've got laptops in every cruiser that are always online), as well as the way police dehumanize the people they "mess with" or otherwise interact with. I think perhaps my cop's world is divided into three kinds of people: Us (cops), Citizens (people who aren't cops and aren't criminals), and Them (criminals and poor people who are basically criminals waiting to commit crimes). After the ride-along, one of my fellow interns asked how it was and I said the cop I was riding with seemed like a nice guy. She responded by saying she's not going to take a ride-along because it seems like everyone who comes back from one has a better opinion of the cops. I suggested that might not be such a bad thing. Her response:

Why is it ok for the cops to dehumanize the people they arrest so they'll be able to do their jobs easier, but it's not ok for me to dehumanize the cops in order to do my job [as a defense attorney] easier?

It's a great question. But wouldn't it be nice if we could figure out a system where nobody had to dehumanize anyone else in order to sleep at night?

Posted 07:25 AM | Comments (4) | 1L summer

MT 3.0D1

Another update of Movable Type is here, but it doesn't appear to have what I've come to want most in the couple of weeks I've been using MT 3.0: Better ways to deal with comment spam.

Right now, MT 3.0 lets you ban comments from certain IP addresses, but you have do do so one comment/IP address at a time. This requires multiple steps to both ban the IP address and delete the spam comments. MT does give you a list of all recent comments w/ a checkbox next to each comment, but the only thing you can do w/ that checkbox is delete the comments.

This is a good start, but what I really need is the ability to list all comments (or the last 20-50), check a box next to those that are spam, then click a "ban these IP addresses and delete comments" button. Also, I should be able to ban comments from a certain email address, as well as comments that contain certain URLs. These options were available in MT 2.6 via MT-Blacklist, and it seems a real shame that users should have to sacrifice this functionality in order to upgrade their MT installation (and pay for the privilege!). Yes, MT 3.0 offers TypeKey as a way to deal w/comment spam, but I don't have time to screw w/all my templates to add TypeKey functionality, and I'm not sure I'd want to even if I did. MT-Blacklist works well; I hope a) its developer will make it compatible w/MT 3.0, or b) SixApart will build it more completely into MT 3.x. Please?

Posted 06:04 AM | meta-blogging

More Wackiness, Please

Thanks to DG (via Beanie), my very own results in the latest quiz making the rounds:

------
Wackiness: 38/100
Rationality: 52/100
Constructiveness: 64/100
Leadership: 68/100

You are an SECL--Sober Emotional Constructive Leader. This makes you a politician. You cut deals, you change minds, you make things happen. You would prefer to be liked than respected, but generally people react to you with both. You are very sensitive to criticism, since your entire business is making people happy.

At times your commitment to the happiness of other people can cut into the happiness of you and your loved ones. This is very demanding on those close to you, who may feel neglected. Slowly, you will learn to set your own agenda--including time to yourself.

You are gregarious, friendly, charming and charismatic. You like animals, sports, and beautiful cars. You wear understated gold jewelry and have secret bad habits, like chewing your fingers and fidgeting.

You are very difficult to dislike.
------

That's what I call a backhanded compliment. On the one hand, I'm supposedly difficult to dislike; on the other, I'm supposedly a politician, which would make me very easy to dislike. Maybe I'll edit out the politician part and whip out this diagnosis the next time someone says they want to beat the crap out of me. Of course, now that I know DG is a mob boss, maybe I can just try to stay on her good side and let her take care of such problems. Or I could always ask Beanie to turn some of her evil genius against those those don't fully appreciate the difficulty of disliking me. Combined with GdG's font of knowledge, this sounds like an invincible team of superheros. As one of my neighbors used to say, "I know people...."

Posted 06:22 AM | Comments (3) | life generally

Vietnam Zippo Etching

Traveling back to D.C. from Michigan last weekend we heard a story on NPR about a new musical interpretation of the phrases and sayings U.S. soldiers etched onto their Zippo lighters while in Vietnam. I didn't care much for the music, but the sayings were pretty incredible. My favorite is featured on the NPR page about the story:

We are the unwilling, Led by the unqualified, Doing the unnecessary, For the ungrateful.

I wonder how many U.S. soldiers in Iraq feel that way.

For more on the Vietnam Zippos, check out The Vietnam Zippo, a which I think was mentined in the NPR story.

Posted 06:06 AM | Comments (3) | general politics

Police Ride-Along

Hey, I'm going to spend tomorrow morning riding around the dirty streets with some of our city's finest (police persons, that is), so here's your chance: What have you always wanted to ask a cop (but were always afraid to ask)? Send your questions in ASAP (before about 7 a.m. tomorrow morning) and I'll ask them. Of course, if asking your question will get me locked up or otherwise jeopardize my office's "good" relationship with the police, I may have to decline, but that should still leave plenty of leeway. Sorry about the short notice, but if you read this before 7 a.m. Tuesday, send me a question and I'll have an answer for you tomorrow night.

One of my fellow interns recently did a ride-along and her host started talking about what a great "polygraphist" the department has. She was a little surprised to hear this, but was even more shocked when the cop gushed: "Yeah, he's so good he'll have you confessing to all kinds of things you never did! He just asks you some questions, and pretty soon you don't even know whether you did those things or not -- he's that good!" I doubt I'll get any great material like that (or if I'll be allowed to write it down if I do), but we can hope.

Posted 09:27 PM | 1L summer

And we're back!

After a wonderful and extremely relaxing week in Michigan, it's time to get back in the groove here. For those with any interest, you'll find a few highlights from our vacation on ambivalent images (just click back through the last week of photos, or start here and go forward). Mostly we fished, played cards, read books, watched movies (in addition to Spiderman 2, I saw Paycheck and 50 First Dates) and ate too much great food. It was great times, but all good things must end, and so it's back to work here.

As everyone certainly knows by now, while we were away, Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate, so it's going to be John & John v. George & Dick. What else did I miss? Not only was I in a virtual Internet blackout (L's parents have a dialup connection so I did check email a couple of times, but no real surfing), but I was also in a virtual NPR and newspaper blackout, meaning my only source of information about the outside world was Fox News, CNN, and local tv news. After a week of that, the only thing I remember is something about Scott and Laci Peterson. TV has become a horrible source for news, unless you're watching The Daily Show or NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS. (Speaking of which, Tivo saved last Friday's edition for us and the interview with Thomas Frank about how the so-called "culture wars" have increased Americans' tendencies to vote against our own best interests is definitely worth your while.)

Anyway, even though it was a week ago now, I hope everyone had a happy Fourth of July. I'll be playing catchup around here for a while, but things should be more or less back on track...

Posted 06:35 AM | Comments (5) | life generally

Spiderman 2: Being Steady

Editor's Note: This post was written July 5, but because of Internet access problems, it did not actually go online until July 12.

We're part of history! We contributed to the record-setting opening-weekend of "Spiderman 2"! I feel so good about that. It might be the best thing I have ever achieved. Even though, to be honest, I didn't really contribute, since L's dad was generous enough to buy my ticket, and since we didn't really, technically, go on opening weekend. We went on Monday the 5th—was that still part of opening weekend?

Anyhoo, it was better than I expected. If you enjoyed the first, I bet you'll enjoy (or enjoyed, since by now you've probably already seen it) this one. You get lots of neat special effects w/Spidey flying through the streets of Gotham City or wherever he is, some kisses w/the girl, several fights w/the bad guys, and a pretty spectacular subway scene that should put you on the edge of your seat.

<spoilers>
The movie flirts a little w/being unconventional in the sense of depriving Spidey of his powers for a while and even making it seem like he might not get the girl. Of course, these are only flirtations; being a Spiderman movie it must obviously conform to Hollywood's expectations, but it also has the added burden of having to conform to comic book expectations. I guess in mainstream comic books as in Hollywood, the hero gets the girl. I'm guessing b/c I don't know much about comic books.

"Spiderman 2" (w/its stunningly boring and unimaginative title) was also conventional in its message. Spidey spends the first bit laboring under the idea that he has to be a superhero at the expense of everything else in his life. Then, when that doesn't work (and when he seems to be losing his super powers, anyway) he abandons being a superhero completely and tries to become just a regular guy. The mad scientist suggests his loss of powers is because he's keeping love bottled up inside and that's tying him all up in knots, hence the lost powers. Of course, this extreme doesn't work so well either b/c the city begins to fall apart w/out Spiderman around to keep crime in check and also b/c Aunt May gives Spidey a lecture about how sometimes "we have to stay steady to do what's right, even if it means giving up our dreams." Spidey's dream is, of course, Mary Jane Watson, but when her life is threatened, he realizes he has to be Spiderman, even if it means losing her to another guy (an astronaut!?). So Spidey returns, kicks ass steadily, and gives up his dream by telling MJ they can never be together b/c his enemies would always try to kill her. Here's where the movie could have been good: Leave us w/a broken-hearted Spidey, choosing to battle evil above all else, and a broken-hearted MJ getting married off to a nice astronaut. Have the two of them—Spidey and MJ—pining away from each other. Leave the audience gasping in disbelief and disappointment. Then, in Spiderman 3, give us a torrid illicit love affair between the two of them as they live their secret lives with each other. Wouldn't that be great?

Maybe not. And no way it's going to happen in a blockbuster. The only thing I'm really wondering about at the end is whether Aunt May's spiel is really the "message" of the film. Sure, Spidey repeats the "stay steady to do the right thing even if it means giving up your dreams speech" to the villain to make him do the right thing (as L said, this is an action flick where in order to save the day, all the the hero ends up having to do is give the villain a good talking to), but is that really what works for Spidey, or is it just some happy medium? Is this an "if you love someone, set them free" movie? Or is this an "all things in moderation" movie?

Or is this a Hollywood blockbuster with mixed messages to guarantee a happy ending?
</spoilers>

Doesn't matter. It does well as a blockbuster, but I still wish it had a better title.

Posted 05:09 PM | Comments (2) | ai movies

Loaded for Bear

Well, we're off ... to Michigan for the Fourth of July holiday—and then some. Ambivalent Productions—theimbroglio, the bits, and the images—will be quiet for about a week, during which time I'll be busy living life instead of making other plans. I expect that will involve many hands of pinochle, poker, and possibly Wizard w/L's family, as well as some fishing and reading and movie-watching and great food and just generally relaxing and hanging out. Should be fun.

Thanks to everyone who helped with musical suggestions the other day, the iPod is now loaded with old Morrissey (Viva Hate) for old time's sake; the new Pixies single, "Bam Thwok" (no one mentioned it, but it's the Pixies, which makes it, by definition, superlative); Modest Mouse (of course); the Franz Ferdinand single, "Take Me Out" (it is yummy); and Hot Fuss by The Killers. That last one was in tight competition with Snow Patrol, which I really like the sound of for some reason, from the clips on iTMS—I hear some Dinosaur Jr., Led Zeppelin, and other strange goodness. Also I almost went for The Shins, but they'll have to wait for a more money day. Finally, we'll be listening to some "Fuzzy Math" from the George W. Bush Public Domain Audio Archive, and "Novel Writing" by Monty Python for inspiration and fun.

Of course, the iPod will also be spinning the complete Wilco oeuvre, minus the new one which I couldn't spring for yet, despite all the fuss it's getting. I just didn't feel like getting into too much more downtempo stuff for this trip, and it sounds like "A Ghost Is Born" is not a real sing-along sort of album. We'll also have some Jayhawks, Nuspirit Helsinki, Elliot Smith (talk about your downtempo), Weezer, The Donnas, Cat Power, Dashboard Confessional (yikes! more depression music!), Elevator Ride, the White Stripes, Interpol, The Viper and His Famous Orchestra, Weezer, Cake, TMBG, Flaming Lips, and um, um, more. I do think our ears will be pleasantly entertained for the duration of the 11-hour drive—at least until L. gets sick of my musical selections.

Happy Independence Day Holiday, everyone. Speaking of which, if you'd like a great read in the next week, The Corporation is an incredible page-turner. Funny thing happened on the way to independence day....

Oh, and speaking of books, note to self: Upon return, write up some reaction to the books you've finished recently, including Oryx and Crake (masterful! although L. says not as good as The Blind Assassin, which I'm taking with me), The Corrections, and How Can You Defend Those People? (what an interesting Google search that makes). That's all in addition to The Corporation, which I hope to say something more about soon. Gee. Suddenly my leisure reading has turned into a lot of work...

Posted 05:51 AM | Comments (3) | life generally

Not So Big

New in the blogroll: The Painted Turtle random thoughts by kmsqrd, a 20-something engineer who says she wants to live in a Not So Big House. I never knew it before, I but I probably want to live in a not so big house, too. Doesn't that sound like a good idea?

Kmsqrd also has a cool side-blog called Collected Thoughts, "a collection of quotations by others that encourage thought." This is a great idea, and another great use of the blog form. I would only note that a site like this is just begging for categories and keywords; as it grows, it may become difficult for kmsqrd and her readers to find certain quotes they're looking for, so this kind of "metadata" would be really helpful. Does the new Blogger offers such things?

Posted 08:08 AM | Comments (1) | life generally meta-blogging

I'll Sue!

To the jogger who punched me yesterday afternoon:

Hi. How are you? I'm the guy you punched yesterday. Remember? It was around 6:30 p.m. You were jogging toward me, I was biking toward you. We were on opposite sides of a multi-use paved path that was 8-10 feet wide with a dotted yellow line down the middle. There was a jogger ahead of me, also moving toward you. She was on the far right side of the path, you were on the far left, leaving a lane in the middle at least 4 feet wide for me to pass through as you jogged by. But you apparently decided that wasn't satisfactory. As we approached each other, I saw you begin moving toward the center of the path, instead of staying on the far left where you'd been jogging. I wondered why you were doing that, but it didn't matter; there was still plenty of room for me. Then, as we passed, you reached out and punched my arm. You punched me! It hurt, and was also quite shocking. I turned around to look back at you and it appeared you were shaking your fist and yelling at me. I thought about stopping to ask you why you'd assaulted me like that, but I figured I was probably better off keeping my distance from a potential psychopath who randomly punches people.

Why did you punch me? You looked to be in your 30s or 40s; how did you make it this far in life thinking that punching people was a good way to communicate? I assume you were trying to suggest that I should not have tried to pass the jogger in front of me when you were jogging toward me on the other side of the path, but if so, and if you weren't the kind of person who would rather punch than talk, I would beg to differ. There was plenty of room—plenty!—for all three of us on that trail. If you really think you need at least a 5-foot distance from all other path-users at all times, may I suggest you find another path to jog? The path we met on is very popular, and it's especially crowded between about 5-7 p.m. as people commute home from work and/or get their evening exercise after work. Most of the trail's users appear to understand that we must cooperate to use the trail. It's called sharing—you should really try it. However, if you really need a trail to yourself, perhaps you could try jogging at midnight; I bet the trail is fairly empty at that hour.

Really, I don't care what you do, except, please don't punch me again. If you do, I'll have to stop and ask politely for your name and address. I'm sure it won't take more than a day or two for the summons to reach you and then you can see whether a judge thinks it's ok to punch people for no reason at all.

Thanks, and have swell day. Sincerely,

Your friendly bike commuter.

Posted 07:08 AM | Comments (17) | life generally