Noisette

1000 Lashes

2008-04-17T10:37:00.001-07:00

It's been a while. The kid is big. Hooray Barack Obama.

2008-02-08T12:49:00.000-08:00

Un Beau Bout de Chou

2007-12-05T21:33:00.000-08:00

Three, that's the magic number.

2007-11-15T17:22:00.000-08:00

Fam Pic.

Happy, tongue out, lots of hair.

2007-10-25T12:18:00.000-07:00

Is it Halloween yet?

2007-08-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

My kid is huge.

Sunday in the Park

2007-07-09T17:15:00.000-07:00

I'm just sayin'...

2007-06-27T13:18:00.001-07:00

Little Bit

2007-05-08T18:11:00.000-07:00

Whole lotta chub to love...

2007-05-06T14:03:00.000-07:00

Note the drool.

What I've been up to

2007-04-04T14:47:00.000-07:00

Don't let the door hit you...

2006-12-05T19:05:00.000-08:00

Good-bye, Mr. Recess Ambassador! I will miss that moustache (why is it so white and the rest of his hair so brown? If you dye the hair, dye the 'stache, dude!).

In your wake, Mr. Recess, whom should we back for U.N. Ambassador? We'll never get a Dem in, so I cast my vote for Lincoln Chafee. I love the irony, since he's the one who kept Bolton's nom from reaching the floor. And he is a Repub, if a very mild one. And I kind of feel sorry for him. Lincoln Chafee, U.N. Ambassador!

IF I'd done it (wink, wink, nudge nudge)

2006-11-15T12:53:00.000-08:00

Classy. Stephanie Klein finds herself in even more illustrious company.

Seriously, though, whom do we blame? Because we must blame someone for this moral travesty. Simpson, obviously, is deranged. And broke, one assumes, otherwise even HE would surely want to preserve some shred of dignity. NO, no- I blame the enablers. Fox, Harper Collins and particularly, Judith Regan, the megalomaniac who insists- INSISTS! That she herself conduct the two-part exclusive Fox interview. That this woman would want to be so visibly associated with this endeavor speaks volumes about her character. You'd think she'd keep her head down all the way to the bank. I am so very proud that she is a fellow alumna of dear old Vassar College. Well, at least we have Maria Mitchell and Elizabeth Bishop (and Meryl Streep) to counterbalance.

Speaking of Ms. Klein, a recent entry of hers spawned several thoughts, some more pleasant than others. She announces an upcoming "project:"
"So my project, in the next coming days before Thanksgiving is to simply ask people, "Are you happy?" The trick is, it can't just be friends. I'm going to ask strangers. The checkout girl at the grocery store. The Starbucks barista. ...And I think it will be interesting to see not only how people react to it, but to see how I'll react, what I'll learn about myself. It's harder to ask the strangers we know we'll see again because it's initiating a certain level of intimacy, and they might just ask themselves, "who the hell is this girl, asking me this?" But I don't care. I also won't settle for a one word answer. I think if you linger long enough and keep eye contact, people will give you more. I think most of us like sharing our lives; it just takes some of us a while to open up."

No, Stephanie, YOU like sharing your life, all of it. I'll speak for the segment of the population that would be pretty offended if you, a stranger, walked up and asked me, a propos of nothing but your own self-involvement ("it will be interesting... to see how I react, what I'LL learn about MYSELF"),
"Are you happy?"
Pregnant or not, I'd probably tell you exactly what I thought of your question, and NOT answer it (I'm pregnant too, so that's hardly a free pass where I'm concerned).

Interestingly, though, her poorly-conceived project actually gets me thinking about happiness- it's a concept that used to fascinate me. Here's why:

I wrote my Master's thesis on the birth of West African feminism in Senegal in the 1960's and 1970's. I learned in researching and writing it that women who lived situations that I would consider unsustainable, such as being the second wife of a much-absent husband, considered themselves happy in a lot of cases. How could this be, my 23-year old mind wondered? I realized that one's own conception of happiness has more to do with the socio-cultural environment in which one happens to live. These women were happy, maybe, because their lives fit patterns that they associated with happiness. Being a second wife in Senegal is not as good as being a first wife, but it is socially acceptable and even desirable, certainly preferable to not being a wife at all. Polygamy is enshrined in the legal codes of most of the West African muslim-dominated countries I studied- a man can have up to four wives, if he can provide for them. The happy women I interviewed had nice houses, several children, often, but not always, fulfilling careers. They felt satisfied in their lives. Their lives were far from perfect, but they were happy (or at least that's what they told me).*

But what is happiness, really? Is it a constant? If the stars align and we achieve and create and pursue, will we ever find ourselves in a permanent state that we can call "happy?" Really?

I was trying to remember something eloquent (more eloquent than I've been here) on happiness, something I thought Virginia Woolf wrote- but found this instead:

"Happiness in this world, when it comes, comes incidentally. Make it the object of pursuit, and it leads us a wild-goose chase, and is never attained. Follow some other object, and very possibly we may find that we have caught happiness without dreaming of it." ~ Nathaniel Hawthorne (not my fave author, but he'll do in a pinch)

Also, Simone de Beauvoir notes in her Second Sex intro (I never made it much further than the intro- does that make me a bad person? Possibly.):

"But we do not confuse the idea of private interest with that of happiness, although that is another common point of view. Are not women of the harem more happy than women voters? Is not the housekeeper happier than the working-woman? It is not too clear just what the word happy really means and still less what true values it may mask. There is no possibility of measuring the happiness of others, and it is always easy to describe as happy the situation in which one wishes to place them."

This ended up being a default position I took in my thesis- that pinpointing the happiness of the women I studied, whether now or when pushing for feminist ideals in the 1960's, was impossible and not really my place or my business. I gauged women's progress in Senegal with tangible markers, where I could- how many women university graduates in 1973; how many women authors, scientists, politicians; provisions made for women in the Family Code... But what had I proved? Had their lives improved? Had they become more happy? Does women's liberation necessarily equal happiness for those who've been liberated? Should it? Should happiness be the goal of any movement?
And, most importantly, wasn't feminism a western concept, a round peg that I was unwittingly but unfairly jamming into the square hole of Senegalese independence, organization, and unabated, miserable poverty? YES. Of course the answer was yes and that's what my thesis became.

But back to Stephanie. What kind of answers will her question elicit? (Besides the inevitable -f*** off...) Most likely they will come in yes or no form, with some elaboration. But what will the answers prove? Can anyone truly claim constant, day-to-day happiness? There's contentment, satisfaction, but even if our lives are "going well," for how many moments in a given day can we count ourselves truly happy?

*I'm thinking now that my thesis interviews are ironically similar to Stephanie's project (ironic since I am now so critical). The difference, though, is that my interviews were scheduled, conducted by permission of the interviewee, in furtherance of a legitimate purpose- my thesis. Academic advancement or whatever. Still, I can't help but see similarities- young American girl asking older Senegalese women about "happiness" among other things is maybe as presumptuous as Stephanie Klein asking similar questions of her barista. Ah well...

What an agonizing, nail-biting, ultimately vindicating trip it's been!

2006-11-09T15:16:00.000-08:00

Ok, so my blog is more or less defunct, at least until I get this child out and get more than 4hr sleep per night, but I just had to get back on here to say....

WHOOOT!!

To recap: Dems take the House, Dems almost take the Senate, Rumsfeld resigns, Bush looks a little contrite and takes "a lot of responsibility," Burns concedes, Allen concedes, DEMS TAKE THE SENATE, Bolton on his way to irrelevance, Mehlman out (?)

- "Man on Dog" Santorum- loser
- "Macaca" Allen- loser
- "taxi drivers are terrorists, I heart Abramoff" Burns- loser
- "I am Queen Esther" Harris- loser (but we knew that was coming...)

-Speaker Pelosi
-Senate Majority Leader Reid
-no far-right Fed Court appointments
- investigations and oversight
- accountability!

Could this be the BEST ELECTION EVER?????

This sucker just doesn't give up, does he?

2006-10-06T12:48:00.000-07:00

Quietly, discreetly, after a celebratory signing ceremony in which he praised the bill, Bush gave himself authority in a "signing statement" to ignore key provisions of Congress' new law governing presidential appointments to FEMA. (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, bien sur)

Signing statement is employed again
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff October 6, 2006

"WASHINGTON -- President Bush this week asserted that he has the executive authority to disobey a new law in which Congress has set minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.

To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership."

Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions."

(Ah, Bush's "interpretation" of the Constitution. I'm SURE we can trust that as far as we can throw it.)
...

Georgetown Law School professor Martin Lederman said Congress clearly has the power to set standards for positions such as the FEMA director, so long as the requirements leave a large enough pool of qualified candidates that the White House has ``ample room for choice."

``It's hard to imagine a more modest and reasonable congressional response to the Michael Brown fiasco," said Lederman, who worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment about its signing statement.

...Bush has virtually abandoned his veto power, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Bush has vetoed just one bill since taking office, the fewest of any president since the 19th century.

Earlier this year, the American Bar Association declared that Bush's use of signing statements was ``contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."

Last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush's signing statements are ``an integral part" of his ``comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power" at the expense of the legislative branch."

Long live King George.

A Dark Day

2006-09-28T16:39:00.000-07:00

Today's NY Times editorial was blistering and on the money:

"Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser."

If you are at a loss as to what exactly this bill, which just passed the Senate (65-34! WHAT THE HELL???) is going to do to this country, read the rest of the editorial.

I'm very, very sad today. In the name of protecting their own asses, both Republicans and Democrats have failed us. The end result of the passage of this bill is not a safer United States. If we're lucky, it's another Supreme Court opinion nullifying the anti-constitutional provisions of the act. But that will take another year, or two- in the meantime, our stance in the world, the safety of our own troops, and the very essence of what this country stands for will be eroded.

Le Beau Japon

2006-09-14T17:34:00.000-07:00

Subsidizing hypocrisy

2006-08-08T15:59:00.000-07:00

We are absolute hypocrites in this country. We trumpet the virtues of free trade and open markets, demanding that developing nations give us access to their markets and insisting that free trade policy will only do them good. Meanwhile, we continue to subsidize agriculture in this country to an alarming extent (only to be outdone by the European Union). The Doha WTO trade round collapsed because of this. This is entirely the fault of developed nations. An astute commenter addresses this in his WaPo op-ed today:

"In the end, however, no trade agenda will succeed if we don't address agricultural subsidies in the United States. We cannot afford to let Doha's failure become an excuse to reauthorize subsidy programs in next year's farm bill. Subsidies and quotas shift more costs to American consumers and put us at a disadvantage when negotiating trade deals.

The worst thing about farm subsidies is not that they're wasteful -- though they are -- it's that they devastate the export sectors, the engines of growth, in developing nations. It makes zero sense to wipe out the benefits of U.S. foreign assistance in order to keep paying our farmers to be inefficient. Overcoming the resistance of the agricultural lobby, which has received these subsidies for decades, demands a concerted effort and will require leadership from President Bush as well as U.S. businesses. We will also need to hear from advocates of the world's poor."

Who wins with agri-subsidies? Agri-business. Archer-Daniels-Midland. Who loses? All of us. Not to mention those in developing countries who could farm cotton, soy, corn, etc. and sell it at a profit on the world market if it weren't for our distorting subsidies.

We extol the virtues of capitalism and the free market while maintaining these anachronistic subsidies. This is hypocrisy, and the future of free and fair trade depend on change. C'mon, Repugs- you for whom free markets are almost sexually enticing. Live up to your word and change this. The rest of the world is waiting.

Generational Differences

2006-07-24T11:16:00.000-07:00

My father forwarded me this email, introducing it as "very interesting:"

"I do not know if this article is real, but it sounds accurate to me.

Subject: Spanish newspaper article, something to think about.
All European life died in Auschwitz By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez(*)

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jewsand replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned aculture, thought,creativity, talent.

We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.The contribution of this people is feltin all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove toourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime andpoverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.They have turned ourbeautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destructionof their naive hosts.And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred,creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future fortheir children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.What a terrible mistake was made by a miserable Europe."

My father and I have come to verbal blows on this subject before (and similar ones- Israel vs. Palestine, the 9/11 response). Dad is of the generation of American Jews who grew up during WWII, not concerned for their personal safety but fearing for European relatives, angry with America for not getting involved sooner. The establishment of Israel was a moment of unmitigated celebration for them.

I am of the generation that questions the orthodoxy of the Israel story. I have also spent time in countries like France, which is not as pro-Israel as we are, and Senegal, which is of course Muslim. I am proud of my Jewish heritage but also question the circumstances which brought Israel into being and am not unhesitatingly supportive of everything it does.

I'm digressing, somewhat, but want to put the email in the context of my dad's worldview, and my response in the context of mine. The subject here, though, is European Muslims.

Anyway, I wrote my father back (quickly)-

"Dad, this is so wrong on so many levels- I'm happy to explain in detail but here are a few key points:

1. The Jews weren't "replaced" by Muslims. The Jews in Western Europe, anyway, were part of the middle class (for the most part, of course, with exceptions). The muslims arrived mostly from at the time European colonies in North Africa to do manual labor that the Europeans refused to do, at wages too low for Europeans (much like Hispanic immigrants in the US today). Muslims from North Africa were INVITED to do factory jobs (in France, anyway)- the fact that the jobs ran out and the people found themselves stranded in a strange land with no work is not really the fault of the Muslims. It had nothing to do with "proving to ourselves we're not racist"- if Europeans wanted to prove that they probably shouldn't have colonized North Africa in the first place.

2. I take exception also to the idea that Muslims haven't donated a great deal to the artistic and cultural fabric of the world. You and I have argued this before and I'm happy to show you examples of what I mean- but under the Ottoman Empire, for instance, places like Turkey, Persia were great centers of learning and culture. In Muslim Africa, Mali and Senegal had universities that were established more or less concurrently with those in Europe. Sure, the learning and culture were very DIFFERENT from that of the West, but that hardly makes their traditions better, or worse. (By the way, much of Southern Spanish culture owes its roots to the Moors, Muslims who occupied that region for centuries. In other words, Spain would NOT BE SPAIN if it weren't for Muslim history and influence.)

3. True that in France Muslim youth have been rioting and generally not helping their cause- violence like that is always wrong. You have to take into consideration the broader situation of Muslims in Europe, though- they immigrated, as I said above, largely at the INVITATION of the European countries, and second- and third- generations of Muslims now find themselves poorly educated, without job opportunities, looked down upon by the broader population, and definitely susceptible to extremist thought. Of course, every individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions, but European governments have recognized that they have to do more to offer their Muslim populations equal opportunity for education and advancement that is available to the rest of the population. Until that happens, the violence will probably continue.

Now you know I'm not devaluing the horrible events of WWII and the devastating effect they had on the cultural, political, economic situation of Europe in general- Europe lost a great deal when they lost the educated, worldly, cultured Jewish population. But I get very upset when I read something like this- it's propaganda, and doesn't take into account the actual historical facts."

There is of course a longer response to my dad's forward that needs to be made, but as usual, I don't have the time.

I'll show YOU something counterintuitive...

2006-07-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

From WaPo:

"House Republicans signaled a coming clash with the Senate over the future of military tribunals yesterday when Armed Service Committee members indicated they were inclined to give the Bush administration largely what it wants in the conduct of terrorism trials. ...

'This could be easy,' said Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.), who proudly announced she has neither a law degree nor a college degree as she denounced the high court's 5 to 3 decision against the tribunals as 'incredibly counterintuitive.' 'We could just ratify what the executive branch and the [Department of Defense] have done and move on.'

'That would be a very desirable way to proceed,' said Daniel J. Dell'Orto, the Pentagon's principal deputy general counsel."

Good times. Treating military prisoners humanely and giving them due process rights in accordance with OUR OWN laws of war is "counterintuitive." Maybe Rep. Miller skipped that "Logic 101" class in college. Oh, wait...

Babymoon

2006-07-13T10:34:00.000-07:00

We're running off to Japan in September for one more wacky overseas trip before the birth of the miracle child (his/her due date is roughly Christmas, and I figure- what irony if my atheist, secular womb produces a messiah- and goodness knows I LOVE me some irony). Unfort, we only have about 9 days to spend there (the mindf**k that is Lillyfirm will not allow me to take any more vacation time guilt-free, and somehow I'm already worried about taking a paltry 9 days off- durn you, Lillyfirm!). We're thinking of spending a few days in Tokyo/environs and another 4-5 days in Kyoto/environs. I don't think our timeframe and my pregnant self will allow us any more running around. Still, I'd be open to suggestions- if anyone in my vast fanbase has been to/loves/has one of those weird, Western, usually male obsessions with/ Japan, please regale me with stories of your favorite places, experiences, strange moments, etc.

I figure I won't get much of a response, but it's worth a try, right?

The King is ... Wounded?

2006-06-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

Normally I don't like to make an entire post a redirect, but Andrew Sullivan's summary of and reflections on yesterday's SCOTUS decision are so spot-on and absolutely perfect that I thought I'd send you there with the requisite- "Yeah, what HE said."

Andrew's comments

Ok, yeah, I love that wacky British libertarian. You wanna make something of it? Do ya?

HAPPY DAY!

2006-06-29T17:42:00.000-07:00

Because I'm so pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay military tribunals, I thought I'd break from my typical vitriol and reward my faithful readers with this picture of a kitten.

(Hat tip- www.dailykitten.com)

Happy Independence Day, everyone!

Focus on a Moron

2006-06-28T13:57:00.000-07:00

First, read this asinine commentary on the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment penned by Mr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and posted on CNN.com today.

Then, read my response:

James Dobson is obviously not a lawyer (or if he is, he's forgotten what he learned in law school). His "media bias" comments notwithstanding, the last time I checked, it took a supermajority in the Senate AND 3/4 of the states to enact a constitutional amendment. He cites 20 states as having voted "defense of marriage" amendments to their state constitutions. 20 is, of course, less than HALF the number of states in this union- thus VERY, VERY far from the 3/4 number necessary to pass an amendment. Perhaps the reason for the media's "negligence" is that members of the media can count; they realized that 20 states is nowhere near the amount needed- and they had other, more important news to cover (the Iraq war and various crucial domestic issues come to mind).

As for the courts- Dobson can name-call all he wants, but "liberal judge activism" equates in all cases to decisions logically made based on precedent and the Constitution OR the constitutions of the several states (he should review the Massachusetts case- that was decided based on STATE constitutional equal protection- differing from the federal). He whines that "activist" judges were appointed by Clinton and Carter- these were popularly elected Presidents, thus Mr. Dobson would be hard pressed to argue that the judicial appointments made during their tenure were somehow against the will of the electorate.

Finally, the argument put forth by Sen. McCain and others is perfectly logical. Marriage CAN be defined by the states. Perhaps Mr. Dobson should turn his attention to the Defense of Marriage Act, which nullifies the Full Faith and Credit Clause with regard to gay marriage. His main argument against state definition of marriage is that it might be "confusing" to have differing definitions of marriage in different states, but surely the intelligent American public can handle it, as we tend to be able to do when confronted with varying state laws generally.

Mr. Dobson should also glance at the 10th Amendment. It stresses that the federal government is a government of limited and enumerated powers, and leaves the balance of governing to the states. It delineates, in other words, a concept called Federalism- one that Conservatives are happy to get behind unless the topic debated falls within the nebulous rubric of Christian morality- then the federal government should by all means tell us what we can and cannot do.

This hypocrisy is, frankly, getting old.

As a post-script, I would add that I have no problem with CNN running conservative commentary; I do have a problem, however, with rhetoric that is an illogical, thinly-veiled appeal to base emotion- that is exactly what Mr. Dobson's commentary amounts to. He should choose his arguments more carefully or get off his soap box once and for all.

Thank you for your time.

[Noisette]
Attorney
Los Angeles, CA

UPDATE: My dearest Andrew Sullivan responds to Dobson:

"Many of Dobson's fundamentalist preachers were as certain then that black-white marriages were as alien to God's will as they believe same-sex marriage is today. There was no "utter chaos." Moreover, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and all constitutional precedent prevent the imposition of one state's civil marriages on any other state. These facts are not in dispute. James Dobson is an intelligent man; and he's engaged in deliberate deception."

Whether he's deliberately deluding others or is just plain deluded, James Dobson needs to SHUT THE HELL UP.

Read the rest of Sullivan's comments- they're well thought out and more articulate than mine...

How to Win in 2006

2006-06-16T09:29:00.000-07:00

I've listened to the plans laid by the DNC, and they're, frankly, pretty pathetic. I think we may be in danger of losing (or not winning back) not just the House, but the Senate. So here's what I propose:

The DNC create a national advertisement, that Dem candidates in the various jurisdictions can adapt- but the theme will remain national. The idea: tie each and every GOP candidate to the failures of the Bush Administration and the general atmosphere of corruption. It's simple, it's unifying, and- by and large- these people CAN be tied to the less-than-savory side of their political party, to a man (or woman). Here's how it will go down:

Opening voice-over: "the Republicans have controlled the House, Senate and Presidency since 2002. Things have not gone well."

Shot one: "Smoking gun turning into a mushroom cloud."

Shot two: "We KNOW that Saddam Hussein has ties to Al Qaeda."

Shot three: "We recently learned that Saddam Hussein has been seeking yellowcake... in Niger."

Shot four: Powell pleading his false case before the UN.

Shot five: This war should cost $5 billion and we'll only need 10,000 troops (or whatever)

Shot six: Mission Accomplished

Shot seven: Bring 'em on

Shot eight: "The insurgency is in its last throes."

Shot nine: Bill Frist: "In this video, she doesn't appear to be in a persistent vegetative state."

Shot ten: "We couldn't have anticipated the breach of the levees" (with quick cut to the day before when Bush was BRIEFED specifically on the probable breach of the levees)

Shot eleven: Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.

Shot twelve: "Poor Trent Lott lost his vacation home in this storm. Such a tragedy."

Shot thirteen: Split screen- Bush joking and playing guitar while the levees burst in New Orleans.

Shot fourteen: Chertoff trying to explain why the press found out before DHS about the state of shelters in New Orleans.

Shot fifteen: Bush proposing Harriet Miers as SCOTUS justice.

Shot sixteen: Tom Delay making some statement that he has never done anything corrupt.

Shot seventeen: Randy Cunningham being led away in handcuffs.

Shot eighteen: Scooter Libby being indicted.

Shot nineteen: Bush: "I never met Jack Abramoff." Cut to multiple pictures of him shaking hands with Abramoff.

Voice over: Isn't it time we brought this country back to honor, back to accountability, back to truth?
Vote Democrat in November.

Of course, there's so much more that could be addressed- the tax cuts for the rich vs. the national debt, "No child left behind" vs. cuts in education spending... but the ad needs to be focused and hit home. Whaddya think? Am I missing any "shots" I should stick in there?

My poor, neglected little blog

2006-06-11T18:41:00.000-07:00

Ah well. I've been spending a lot of my free (and not-so-free) time over here: http://www.stalintheshark.blogspot.com- very cool blog with very interesting commenters. Arguing such timely issues as gay marriage and abortion with conservatives and libertarians has forced me to dredge up my Constitutional Law learnin' from the recesses of my brain and- oooh, it feels mighty good. I miss ConLaw. I miss debate. You'd think, in a glistening, top-notch lawfirm such as my Lillyfirm, heady legal discussion would be de rigeur, but nothin' doin'. "Where should we have happy hour this week" is about as cerebral a topic as anyone at my workplace approaches. So when I get the opportunity to debate equal protection, substantive due process, privacy- I get a little turned on. And my little blog gets neglected in consequence. So it goes...
I am also pregnant and morning sick- so when I'm not elaborating on the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, I am curled in the fetal position (no pun intended) in Lillyfirm's "nap room." Ah well.

The Spectre of Conservatism

2006-06-05T14:16:00.000-07:00

It's rearing its ugly head this week. Could the GOP be preparing for hairy midterms? Looks like it.

Bush Revives Gay Marriage Ban- auspicious timing much? Shameless political pandering, this is. And yet, it worked in 2004. Can't blame the GOP for sticking to simple, emotional topics that appeal to simple, emotional people. People who are willing to vote against their economic self interest to ensure that the two guys living down the street can't receive the same legal and tax benefits that we heterosexual married couples may. It's touching, really, their selfless concern for others. Touching.

Supreme Court to Rule on Affirmative Action in Public Schools- This one is pretty ominous. Sandra Day cast a deciding swing vote in the Michigan case- and she's gone, replaced by a man who, while professionally qualified, leans slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan. I have not read about this "open-slot" diversity question in detail; perhaps I will, perhaps I will comment further.

Repeal of the Estate Tax- And this, OOOOH this. As our debt reaches $9 trillion levels, as we gorge the life out of low income and education discretionary spending, as we trumpet this country as the ultimate meritocracy while the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider- we are about to repeal the estate tax. Brilliant. This is a GOP pet issue and I am amazed at the support for it in the Senate.
Sebastian Mallaby, who wrote this article, sums up the distasteful turn of events:
"Repealing the estate tax is like erecting protectionist barriers around the hereditary elite. It is anti-meritocratic and unfair -- and antithetical to this nation's best traditions."
Indeed.

Must work but will try to post more and better.

President Hicks?

2006-05-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

We could do worse. And have done worse, to be frank. The fact that more votes were cast for Taylor Hicks than were cast for our current president speaks volumes about this country's priorities. Of course, one may cast multiple votes for American Idol ("vote early and often" being the show's unspoken mantra) and no doubt most of the voters were under this country's legal voting age, but you get my drift. Ok, enough moralizing.

The American Idol finale was wacky fun. The filming itself was what one might expect; a cheesy "warm up dude" made the rounds among audience members, Paula and Simon hugged and canoodled before the show began, and untold hordes of women in ubiquitous halter tops and tight pants stumbled in and out of their seats. Otherwise, we saw whatever everyone at home saw.

The not-so-VIP afterparty followed. A corporate-sponsor-laden extravaganza. Forlorn strangers lined the way to the entrance, begging for extra passes. Ours entitled us to a "gift bag-" including at least $30 in merchandise, the bag boasted the second season of, yes, American Idol, and a microphone-shaped shower radio. There were no Idols to be seen- apparently there was a super-extra-VIP party where the truly special could fraternize. Still, there were B-Celebs in spades: I almost spilled a drink on Kevin Nealon, and Julie Cooper Nichol (whatever the OC actress' name is- "Julie Cooper Nichol" is just so much more fun to say) made the rounds.

Ah, Hollywood. Oh, how silly. Now back to our regularly-scheduled political ranting.

American Silliness

2006-05-24T14:09:00.000-07:00

Whoot! Going to the American Idol finale tonight! Whoo-hoo! Taylor Hicks! Soul Patrol! WHOOOT!

This is supposedly the "2-Hour Season Finale." Both contestants sang their final ballads last night, though, so one wonders how these two hours are to be filled. Surprise guest appearances from Stevie Wonder or Ricky Martin? A 1-hr, cheesy-music-filled "retrospective"? Paula finally doing what she's been bursting to do for months (I'm not sure what that is, but it might entail running onto the stage, taking off various articles of clothing, and smooching Ryan Seacrest)...

"And after the show, it's the Aftah-party,
And after the party, it's the hotel lobby..."

Whoooot! Girls gone wild! WILD, I tell you!

SHUT IT DOWN.

2006-05-19T11:14:00.000-07:00

U.N. Urges Closure of Guantanamo Detention Facility

"A U.N. anti-torture panel issued a rebuke of Bush administration counter-terrorism policies today, calling for the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility in Cuba and a halt to the transfer of suspected terrorists to countries where they may face torture.

The committee, charged with monitoring the 1984 Convention Against Torture which the United States has ratified, also charged that the imprisonment of suspects in secret detention facilities constitutes a clear violation of the 1984 treaty.

The 11-page report marked the culmination of the most exhaustive international public review of U.S. anti-terror tactics since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon."

Oh, and this little tidbit: "Snow said President Bush has "expressed his preference that, in fact, we at some point be able to close down Guantanamo," adding that "obviously, the Guantanamo issue is a sensitive issue for people.""

You think? Out of curiosity, why is it that we're not able to shut it down NOW, per the President's "preference?" Could it be because, at Guantanamo, they're in legal limbo, and if they were brought to American soil we'd actually have to (god forbid) charge them with something?

More later (I mean it this time).

It took the Da Vinci Code to bring them together!

2006-05-16T11:16:00.000-07:00

Muslims are joining Roman Catholics in calling for a ban on "Da Vinci Code" throughout India.

Muslims Join Da Vinci Criticism (hat tip: the inimitable Andrew Sullivan)

"'The Holy Koran recognizes Jesus as a prophet. What the book says is an insult to both Christians and Muslims,' Maulana Mansoor Ali Khan, general secretary of the All-India Sunni Jamiyat-ul-Ulema, told the Reuters news agency.

'Muslims in India will help their Christian brothers protest this attack on our common religious belief,' he said."

How nice- if only Christians and Muslims could find real common ground, and could rally around something a wee bit more important than a silly movie.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with religious-themed protests or boycotts of the film- whatevers. But I do have a problem with any effort, state-sanctioned or otherwise, to prevent people from seeing the film in the first place.

The irony in all this- and I'm not the first to point it out- is that all of this protesting and boycotting is serving to give what will probably be a mediocre film (I base this on the book) oodles of undue publicity.

All that said, I have an embarrassing admission to make- I want to be Audrey Tautou's best friend. I do. I can't help it. Best friends for evah and evah. Audrey and me. It's gonna happen.

Carterized

2006-05-12T10:36:00.000-07:00

From the WSJ:

"Bush Dips Into the 20s
President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%."

And that's the WSJ, folks- last time I checked, a right-leaning publication. Thus it's official- Bush has crossed the border into Carter country. His approval ratings are lower than his dad's were when Clinton wrested the presidency from him.

I don't know whether to be grimly happy that the rest of the country is finally catching on to the wreck the man has made of this place, or genuinely concerned- after all, we still have 3 more years of this chump- and I'd rather have an effective president, even if I don't agree with him, than an utter lame-duck who can't even command a base of support.

Hear that? That's the Founding Fathers, rolling over in their graves.

2006-05-05T17:05:00.000-07:00

From a NY Times Editorial:

"President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes. Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.

In this area, as in so many others, Mr. Bush has decided not to take the open, forthright constitutional path. He signed some of the laws in question with great fanfare, then quietly registered his intention to ignore them. He placed his imperial vision of the presidency over the will of America's elected lawmakers. And as usual, the Republican majority in Congress simply looked the other way."

Commodities Markets- a Primer

2006-04-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

From WaPo:
"A Senate committee yesterday announced an investigation into taxes paid by major oil companies and asked the Internal Revenue Service for the companies' tax returns.
The Senate Finance Committee promised "a comprehensive review of the federal taxes paid" by the 15 largest oil and gas companies. The panel said it wants to inspect their tax returns for the past five years."

Ok, this is just blatant political grandstanding. Ditto Bush's "we'll look into this" speech from the other day. Why? Because unless these people are morons (which, in the case of our illustrious president, may not be too far off the mark), they understand the nature of the world market for oil, which operates not unlike the world market for coffee. Here's a brief explanation:

World demand for oil is increasing daily, as countries like China and India industrialize. But, you say, what of supply? There have been no hurricane Katrinas lately, no major bombings of oil pipelines or the like. Increased demand should be met by increased supply, right? And the markets should balance out accordingly? Well, not really in commodities markets. Commodities markets are ALL ABOUT speculation. What is setting oil at $70/barrel is fear of future diminished supply. You see, right now traders are bidding on oil contracts for delivery three to six months from now. How do these traders know what the state of oil supply/demand will be in July or August, you ask? They don't. We're all paying the price for their best guess. But the guess is educated. They look at oil use in the summer in industrialized countries- it goes up, right? They look at the growing demand for oil worldwide. That's not going to lessen. AND they look at the political situation in those places where oil is plentiful. Middle East? a mess. Nigeria? disaster. Venezuela? Chavez wants to deprivatize. These things are not good in the eyes of speculators. Any one situation- a turn for the worse in Iraq, Iran, mass chaos in Nigeria, Chavez making good on his threat- will cut hardcore into supply. So they bid with this in mind, and they bid high. Thus $70/barrel.

What does this have to do with Exxon et al? Well, as much as we may hate it, they're entitled to their profits, just as Sara Lee or Kraft would be entitled to profits if the coffee market began behaving in a similar fashion. They are not withholding supply. Why would they? They are supplying, and traders are bidding very high for what they supply. Unless they are responsible for fomenting conflict in those oil-rich areas of the world, they are not doing anything illegal by profiting from the high price of oil. It's business, people. It is what it is.

But maybe they should act altruistically, and cut into their profits to relieve our woes at the pump? But then they would be beaten on the market by foreign oil companies such as Elf or Total/Fina or Shell who have no such humanitarian impulses. This doesn't seem fair, from a business perspective.

So who is to blame for this? Not the oil companies. They're only acting as they should. Who then? Why, the Bush Administration. Completely. Here's why:

The "Bush Doctrine"- the starry-eyed fairy tale that told us that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators, that the war would take a few weeks, that the entire middle east would follow suit and suddenly become capitalist democracies, and that Iraqi oil wells would quickly pump oil, paying not only for reconstruction but stablizing world oil prices. And, by the way, we'd suddenly have a lot of influence in a market that was heretofore not ours to control. Wouldn't that have been nice? Trouble is, the world doesn't work that way. Instead, we hit a hornets' nest with a baseball bat, exciting sectarian tensions which Saddam had (cruelly, yes) tamped down, and creating tension in an oil-rich part of the world where there was less tension before. So now, instead of Iraqi oil freely flowing and under our control, Iraqi oil is flowing nowhere, Iran is building nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda has found new training ground, and the whole region is a bloody, unhappy mess. And because of this, oil is more expensive than it has ever been. Oops.

More on this later.

Ho-hum

2006-04-19T15:55:00.000-07:00

I realized that I haven’t posted on Noisette for some time, and after a bit of soul-searching I’ve come to understand the reason why, which in the spirit of humility I will share with you. I’ve been avoiding posting my semi-regular rants because I’m supposed to have a debate with some conservative dude and truth to tell, I just don’t feel like it. Even though I proposed it in the first place (although I never set a time, in my defense). I feel a bit like Aaron Burr walking away from a duel.
I hardly ever shy away from a fight, especially one where I think the odds are on me. don’t know anything about this guy, other than that he has a blog on which he posts rather extreme conservative invective. I’m sure he’s lovely. I’m sure he’s bright. (Honestly, I’m not even sure he’s a dude, but I’m gonna give myself a pass on that one.) But I’ve taken on some very, very, very, VERY illustrious (or, with regard to the last "very," notorious) conservatives, and while I haven’t won, I’ve held my own against each. To the point where I became their go-to woman on intelligent liberal thought. Point being, I couldn’t drag them over to my side, but I debated well enough and was informed enough to keep their interest and keep them coming back for more. Now, this is not to say that my potential opponent is not every bit as illustrious as the “very”s above. He may be. But if this were the track, or the stock market, or the superbowl, my money would be on that horse/blue chip/AFC Champion named Noisette.
And generally, I think civil debate between two people on opposite sides of the political spectrum is healthy and good, both for the participants and the observers. I used to relish, and still (usually) do, healthy political debate with the men above because it kept me sharp in my liberal ideals.
Not these days, though. These days I’m just tired. I do my work and I go home and I watch TV and I go to bed. Perhaps this means my best days are behind me, from a liberal-defense perspective. I don’t think so, though- I rather think that this is just a hiatus.
So, to the conservative dude who hoped to debate me, I apologize. It might have been fun. But I just don’t have the constitution or resolution for it right now. Take care, and be well.

No F***ing Kidding

2006-04-05T12:28:00.000-07:00

An update to my razor-sharp coverage of the Administration's misguided "A-B-C" AIDS prevention program:
(From WaPo)
"GAO Criticizes Bush's AIDS Plan
Abstinence-and-Fidelity Provision Sowing Confusion, Report Says

The requirement that a large fraction of President Bush's global AIDS plan go to promote abstinence and fidelity is causing confusion in many countries and in a few is eroding other prevention efforts, including ones to reduce mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator requires that 20 percent of all AIDS spending go for prevention. Half the prevention budget must be spent to stop sexual transmission of HIV. Two-thirds of that spending, in turn, must be used promoting abstinence and fidelity.

"Most of the 20 PEPFAR teams . . . reported that fulfilling [that requirement] presents challenges to their ability to respond to the local epidemiology and cultural and social norms," the GAO authors wrote. About half a dozen teams said the spending requirement "can undermine the integrated nature of HIV/AIDS prevention programs."

Of the 15 "focus countries" -- 12 African countries, plus Haiti, Guyana and Vietnam -- nine reduced the amount of money for programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV in their 2006 budgets to meet the spending target for abstinence promotion."

Nice job, kids. A further illustration of the Bush Administration's touching cultural sensitivity.

Happy Birthday Senegal

2006-04-04T12:14:00.000-07:00

http://todayspictures.slate.com/20060404/

I heart Helen Thomas

2006-03-21T12:14:00.000-08:00

I woke up to this exchange this morning and it made me smile:

"BUSH: Helen, after that brilliant performance at the Gridiron, I am...

QUESTION: You're going to be sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: Well, then, let me take it back.

QUESTION: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.
Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?

BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.

QUESTION: And...

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me.
No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true."

Of course his answer goes on ad nauseum and it's the same bullshit he always spouts, but I want to shift the attention from our President's idiocy for a moment and focus on Helen Thomas. She ROCKS. This woman has been around since JFK. She's one of the country's most respected journalists.
Nevertheless, this administration has moved her to the back row for press conferences.

I found this on Wikipedia:

"In July 2005 Thomas was quoted in the newspaper The Hill saying "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar." ...

In a November 2002 talk at MIT, Thomas revealed: "I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Two months later, the answer to that question revealed itself in an off-the-record comment to a reporter from the Torrance, California Daily Breeze following the Society of Professional Journalists annual awards banquet. "This is the worst President ever. He is the worst President in all of American history." The Breeze ran the quote."

Helen has let loose a bit in recent years, which only bolsters her credibility. I admire her tenacity, her eloquence and her wit. I can't wait until once again she's able to ask probing questions of great presidents from the front row.

Thank you, Helen Thomas.

Crash and Burn

2006-03-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

Ugh. Oh well.

As usual, I must borrow my words from the more eloquent. The veteran LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan sums up exactly my disappointment at Crash's success.

"I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.

I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.

For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed."

Couldn't have said it better myself. And believe me, I tried.

Diamonds- still bloody

2006-03-01T12:42:00.000-08:00

(image courtesy Amnesty International)

Inspired by a post over at Greek Tragedy, wherein Ms. Klein expresses a desire for an "eternity band" of diamonds, I thought I'd remind my faithful following that the diamond business is still pretty damned excruciatingly horrible. Sure, the war in Sierra Leone is over, but the industry is still gobbling up diamonds used to foment bloody conflict in Liberia and Ivory Coast. Don't believe me? Check it:

Rough Trade: Diamond Industry Still Funding Bloody Conflicts in Africa

If you must have a diamond, insist that it be conflict free. This is relatively easy to do, and will ensure that the pretty gem on your finger did not fund some child soldier's kalashnikov. Global Witness has prepared a user-friendly guide to buying conflict free.

I want a man who means what he says he means.

2006-02-27T14:56:00.000-08:00

This dud(ette)'s got a good thing going. She quotes portions of Bush's "sound and fury" speeches, then parses them out to explain what our revered leader is really saying (and shows her work, too). Nice job.

Right-Wing Humor: A Cautionary Tale

2006-02-17T12:45:00.000-08:00

I was procrastinating and cruising Wonkette the other day when a link to Volpac's "Bill Frist Birthday Card" caught my wandering eye. I followed the link, grimaced at the sycophantic comments, and was about to move on to more interesting fare when I noticed an entry by one Kathryn Shivley. In the context of "keeping a sense of humor," she posted the following joke:

"Media Interpretation:
The Pope is visiting DC and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon cruise on the Potomac sailing on the presidential yacht, the Sequoia. They are admiring the sights when all of a sudden the Pope's hat (Zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Immediately the Secret service men start to launch a boat but President Bush waves them off saying, "Wait, wait I'll take care of this. Don't worry." The President then steps off the yacht, onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over picks it up and then walks back across the water to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid the stunned silence. The next morning the topic of conversation among Democrats on the Hill, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, the New York & L.A. Times is...
'Bush Can't Swim.'"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OH my god! HA! Man, those Republicans, they really know how to tell a....
But wait a minute. I wonder if anyone else found this little pleasantry somewhat... disturbing. Anyone? Anyone notice the main theme of the joke? The lead-up to the anti-Dem "punchline," if you will? BUSH IS GOD. Yup. Bush walked on fucking WATER. This woman obviously found nothing disturbing, and was even amused at the idea of portraying Bush as JESUS.

Jesus Christ.

Still, this joke, never mind Ms. Shivley's questionable taste in posting it, is indicative of the thought process of a certain percentage of this country's population- you know, the 39% that support our C- in-C come hell or high water (quite literally). In the face of corruption, lies, dangerous cronyism, unmitigated ego and unprecedented power-grabbing, a relatively significant portion of our fellow countrypeople support this dude still. Logic is defied by this unless you place such faith in an obviously fallable man in the broader context of their faith in general. These people think that Bush is durn close to God, if not the big deity himself. As such, he is omnipotent (or should be, despite the whinings of the co-equal branches), omniscient (despite his famously low SAT scores), and can do no wrong. Can walk on water, some might say.

It would be funny if it weren't so unnerving.

SHAME.

2006-02-16T09:45:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times:

"Arguing that many of the interrogation and detention practices constituted abuses amounting to torture, the [U.N. Human Rights Commission] report stated, 'The United States government should close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay.' ...

The report says that the use of excessive force during transportation, force-feeding through nasal tubes during hunger strikes and shackling, chaining and hooding of prisoners, placing them in solitary confinement, subjecting them naked to severe temperatures and threatening them with dogs amounted to torture.

It also expresses 'utmost concern' at 'attempts by the United States administration to redefine 'torture' in the framework of the struggle against terrorism in order to allow certain interrogation techniques that would not be permitted under the internationally accepted definition of torture.'"

It will take the work of a generation to undo the damage this Administration has done in 5 years.

Blank Check #3947324895938

2006-02-15T11:34:00.000-08:00

Come the FUCK on.

From WaPo:
"Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday."

I have a lot of griping to do about this, and of course am slammed at work today. I wanted to quickly throw this up here, though, to point up my frustration at the unprecedented hubris of this Administration, and at weenie Republicans like Olympia Snowe who came out strong against police state-esque NSA wiretapping when it seemed politically expedient but then caved like whiny babies at the first sniff of White House pressure to lay off. Screw you, Olympia Snowe. With the Congress, White House and Supreme Court controlled by fringe sects of that organization you are pleased to call your political party, moderate Republicans like you, Arlen Specter et al are our last-ditch protections against unfettered executive overreaching. Grow a (figurative) pair, Snowe. It's in your political best interest to do so, believe me.

This Just In! (24 hours after the fact...)

2006-02-13T18:35:00.000-08:00

CREDIBLE INFORMATION

AP, 2/13/06, Austin Texas--Vice President Cheney blamed inaccurate intelligence information for his accidental shooting of his hunting partner yesterday. "The CIA radioed me credible information that there were several quail right behind me, so I made a pre-emptive strike. Quail will fly off at the slightest provocation so it's important to act quickly if you want to get them. A certain level of collateral damage must be accepted." Donald Rumsfeld also held a news briefing on the incident. "Yes, we would like to have better means of tracking quail, but you go hunting with the equipment that you have. With the bird flu breathing down our necks, it's important that we all be pro-active when it comes to killing birds."

Kit-Kat

2006-02-08T13:29:00.000-08:00

As the untold masses of souls who read my blog have no doubt noticed, I'm not posting much lately. Truth to tell, I need an itty-bitty little break. No soul-searching a la blog entries past- just mad busy. I'll try to post some scintillating, effervescent, timely and insightful prose by this weekend, but I ain't making no promises.

Much love and eternal adoration,

Noisette

PS:
Re: Muslim Riots- Ridiculous. I know we've in large part created this powder keg, but the idea that press freedom must bend to the religious sensitivities of a fringe sector of a particular religion has no place in democratic Europe, or anywhere. Thoughts?

PPS: Andrew Sullivan on what the Dems should be and aren't doing right now:

"I'm not a Democrat and don't think I ever could be, but here's what I'd say if I were in opposition right now. These guys are corrupt and incompetent. They have screwed up the Iraq war, turned FEMA into a joke and landed the next generation with a mountain of debt. We're for making the homeland safer, winning back our allies, and taking on the Iranian dictatorship. We're for energy independence, universal healthcare and balancing the budget again. Now, let Rove do his worst. Hey, we need Democrats who relish the fight, not timid ones who cower at the prospect. Bring back the happy warriors. Please."

Hear, hear. PLEASE.

I feel like doing another one of these things.

2006-02-02T14:05:00.000-08:00

This one is from dooce.com.

Four jobs I’ve had:
1. Line Worker at Christopher Layne Foods, a gourmet-vinegar-making factory
2. Tea Server at A Tire d'Ailes Poetry Bookshop and Tea Salon (now defunct) on the Ile St. Louis, Paris.
3. Research Assistant for a CRAZY-ASS law prof on women's legal protections and rights in different African countries
4. Assistant d'Anglais, Ecole Primaire Jean Moulin, Couzeix, France.

Four movies I can watch over and over:
1. La Veuve de St. Pierre
2. Triplettes de Belleville
3. Life is Beautiful
4. A Room with a View

Four places I have lived:
1. Chagrin Falls, Ohio
2. Brooklyn, NY
3. Nantes, France
4. Dakar, Senegal

Four TV shows I love
1. The Daily Show
2. Lost
3. Family Guy
4. I am beginning to love Boondocks

Four places I’ve vacationed
1. Amsterdam
2. Bangkok
3. Mali
4. Belize (not happy about this last)

Four of my favorite dishes
1. Pho
2. Spaghetti marinara
3. Pad Thai
4. Other noodly yumminess

Four sites I visit daily
1. Wonkette
2. Andrew Sullivan
3. Dooce
4. NY Times

Four places I would rather be right now
1. Eating bread with hazlenut spread at Le Pain Quotedien on Melrose near Robertson
2. Paris
3. Hanoi
4. Bed

Five people I am tagging:
Oh, I don't want to do that. I tag everyone.

Well, that was uninteresting.

"Crash" was a terrible movie. Apparently, I am the only one who thinks this.

2006-01-31T13:49:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to the cast of "Crash," who took home the Screen Actors' Guild award for best performance of a cast in a motion picture. I actually mean that somewhat sincerely, because the actors in this movie were not the problem. They did the best they could with what they had.

On discovering this morning that "Crash" has been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, I felt I had to break my silence. This was, I thought, an embarrassingly terrible movie. There was no subtelty, no craft, no art, no scale- it was 2 hours (or whatever) of high pitched over the top maudlin melodrama. The best that can be said, and has been said, is that the picture is "earnest" and "sincere." (I think A.O. Scott of the NYTimes said that when he lambasted the movie (thankfully)- but I'm not entirely sure; still, someone said it.) Earnestness and sincerity are lovely qualities, and lovely qualities in a movie- but when coupled with ham-fisted writing and downright terrible directing, these attributes- which worked fairly well for Spielberg in "Munich"- sink a film like a lead weight.

I'm sorry. I know this picture was about race, and about racism, and about how we're all a bunch of racists, and about how there are only like 14 people who live in LA, and they're all racist, or something. No but seriously, it's true that there haven't been any good movies lately that have taken on the issue of race in America. But I sure as hell wish "Crash" hadn't stepped up to this particular plate. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" had more impact than "Crash." "Crash" is a movie that could have, and perhaps should have been made in the 1960's, when we were coming out of an era of institutionalized racism, and the blatant ways in which everyday people are everyday racist in their everyday lives needed to be beaten into people.

Now, however, we need a real movie with a real critical eye and real analysis that deals with race as a pervasive and ongoing issue in the US. This movie tries, but falls woefully, horribly short. By reducing those "everyday people" to an ensemble of cliches, the people who made this movie missed an opportunity to say something new and interesting; something that resonates.

There was not one character in this movie that didn't play into collective stereotypes and thus render the directors and writers either not particularly insightful or almost racist in their own right. And adding a little "depth" hardly mitigated this effect. For instance: Sandra Bullock as the rich DA' s wife. (I wasn't aware that DAs did so well in this town, by the way. Maybe I should look into that line of work). She grabs her pocketbook when she sees a black guy and complains that the hispanic dude fixing her locks is a gang member. Come on. Give me something more than that. Ok- she's got anxiety issues. Another cliche that doesn't give her any sort of depth of character. And Matt Dillon as the racist cop. Oh- he loves his father. He's so real.

For christ's sake- can't we have a new look at racism in this country that doesn't involve rich women and cops? And Ludacris as a "reverse racist" carjacker? And Ryan Phillipe as the young cop with the heart of gold? And whoever that dude was as the black screenwriter who isn't "black enough?" Come on. Jesus.

And yet, lots of very intelligent people, whose taste I respect and often share, loved this movie. Really loved it. It touched them. It was new, it was deep, it resonated. So, is it me? Have I turned into such a film snob that I can't appreciate a movie that doesn't deal in irony and subtle glances? Maybe.

I would honestly like to hear (or read) what others thought about this movie. I hate asking "please respond" questions like this because generally people don't actually respond, but I'd truly like to know. What am I missing? Why did everyone like this movie but me? (and A.O. Scott of the NY Times? And my husband?)

***Update: Carina Chocano of the LA Times hated it too. Thank god.

It's Security, Stupid.

2006-01-26T18:12:00.000-08:00

EJ Dionne pens a clear-headed, brilliant WaPo column explaining why the Dems have never listened to or reacted to Karl Rove as they should- and how they'd better do so this time, or risk losing another election:

"What Democrats should have learned [from Rove] is that they cannot evade the security debate. They must challenge the terms under which Rove and Bush would conduct it. Imagine, for example, directly taking on that line about Sept. 11. Does having a "post-9/11 worldview" mean allowing Bush to do absolutely anything he wants, any time he wants, without having to answer to the courts, Congress or the public? Most Americans -- including a lot of libertarian-leaning Republicans -- reject such an anti-constitutional view of presidential power. If Democrats aren't willing to take on this issue, what's the point of being an opposition party?
Democrats want to fight this election on the issue of Republican corruption. But corruption is about the abuse of power. If smart political consultants can't figure out how to link the petty misuses of power with its larger abuses, they are not earning their big paychecks.

And, yes, the core questions must be asked: Are we really safer now than we were five years ago? Has the Iraq war, as organized and prosecuted by the administration, made us stronger or weaker? Do we feel more secure knowing the heck of a job our government did during Hurricane Katrina? Do we have any confidence that the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies will clean up their act if Washington remains under the sway of one-party government?"

The answers? No... hella weaker... heck NO... HELLS NO!

C'mon, Dems. Get your shit together. If you lose 2006, you may lose me.*

*Of course I don't really mean that- where would I go? But it sounded... threatening.

In case there was any lingering doubt.

2006-01-19T10:37:00.000-08:00

From the Human Rights Watch synopsis of its 2006 report:

"In his introductory essay to the World Report, Roth writes that it became clear in 2005 that U.S. mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to “a few bad apples,” but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership.

Evidence of that deliberate policy included the threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill opposing “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” Roth writes, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s attempt to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the law. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that the United States can mistreat detainees so long as they are non-Americans held abroad, while CIA Director Porter Goss asserted that “waterboarding,” a torture method dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was simply a “professional interrogation technique.”

“Responsibility for the use of torture and mistreatment can no longer credibly be passed off to misadventures by low-ranking soldiers on the nightshift,” said Roth. “The Bush administration must appoint a special prosecutor to examine these abuses, and Congress should set up an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate.”

Indeed. But of course, they won't. This White House and GOP controlled Congress will never thoroughly investigate their own.

And for those contrarians tempted to write this off as political accusation, remember that this administration has QUOTED Human Rights Watch's statements against nations that committed human rights abuse- when it served their purposes to do so. When HRW (much like Amnesty International a few months ago) attacks us, though, it becomes partisan lies. Of course.

Fuckers. God, what bullshit.

See also:
HRW Website
New York Times Article

I take back everything I said!

2006-01-17T14:16:00.000-08:00

Well, not really. I'm still trying to figure out what I want this blog to be, if anything at all. But in the meantime, I've got some downtime and Lizzie's meme was so tempting and... well, here goes:

Two parts of your heritage:
1. French Huguenot
2. Leon Trotsky (so Russian-Jewish) (hells yes I said Trotsky, mofos)

Two things that scare you
1. flying in small planes (oh Lizzie, we're so alike)
2. a conservative Supreme Court

Two fears you overcame
1. flying in large planes
2. driving

Two of your everyday essentials:
1. 1/2 hr in the morning to read on-line news before starting billable work (of course I don't always get it...)
2. string cheese

Two things you are wearing right now
1. wedding ring
2. sweater that looked much more attractive online than on me

Two things you wore too much this year
1. my fat jeans
2. my "Northwestern Law" sweatshirt

This year's favorite bands or musical artists
1. Amadou et Mariam
2. Kanye West (does it matter that he was my favorite last year too?)

Two things you want in a relationship
1. a Democrat
2. humor

Two of your favorite movies of the year
1. Cache
2. The Constant Gardener

Best movies of all time
1. Annie Hall
2. Breakfast at Tiffany's

Two things you hate
1. Dick Cheney
2. George Bush

Two of your favorite hobbies
1. singing
2. traveling

Two things you learned this year
1. How to draft the representations and warranties section of a merger agreement (exciting stuff. seriously)
2. That my current job is very far from being my dream job (see #1)

Two accomplishments you are proud of
1. getting honors on my master's thesis (which I wrote in French for a French university- how did I do that?)
2. passing 2 bar exams in 1 year

Two things you want really badly
1. To figure out what exactly this "dream job" of mine is, and to start taking concrete steps toward the getting of it
2. For my cat to stop shitting on the goddamn bed

Two places you went this year (I'm going to assume this means "within the last 12 months")
1. Mali
2. Las Vegas

Two places you want to go on vacation
1. India
2. Ethiopia (yes, I still do, M. Noix. Although Mongolia would be... crazy, too)

Two things you want to do before you die
1. Feel satisfied that my career (or the bulk of it) was spent changing world conditions for the better
2. Live abroad again (just for a year or two...)

Two ways that you are stereotypical of your gender (these are Lizzie's, but they're exactly what I would have said, so I'm leaving them...)
1. I cry easily.
2. I overanalyze.

Two things that make you stand out
1. My completely wonky-ass nose
2. That my engagement ring is NOT a diamond, goddamn it.

Two things you normally wouldn't admit
1. I fantasize about getting a nose job, even though I never really would
2. Ummm... I umm... fart a lot

Two goals for the new year
1. Write that article on cotton subsidies and Mali (I really am gonna, really I am... no really)
2. Be good

La grippe

2006-01-12T11:27:00.000-08:00

Ill. Ill ill. Illin'. Came to work today- why? Am thinking about quitting the blog. No, that's not a reason for everyone to try and convince me otherwise, but I've stopped feeling as though it serves any constructive purpose re: channeling my anger. If I lived in DC, if I had some sort of "in," I'd love to make this a political blog. I live on the other side of the country, though, and so my political commentary consists of my regurgitating snippets of news articles and entries from bloggers who REALLY know what they're talking about. And otherwise? I could make it a "what's wrong with Stephanie Klein" blog, but... yawn, really. Right? Right. Besides, I'm tired of being mean. Even if I'm right when I'm mean, I'm just fatigued by the whole enterprise. I'm not funny enough consistently enough to make it a "humor" blog. I could do a "slice of life" blog, but there's not enough in my life at the moment that merits any slicing. Work is... fine. Married life is good. Friends are far away, but that's the beauty of email. I lived my exciting bohemian life about 5 years ago. I want to write about that, but it's too painful and frankly, I'm not talented enough of a writer to do those times any justice.

So I think that's it. I may change my mind, when I have a mind and not a seething, aching flu-ey brain, but I doubt it.

Feline Fret

2006-01-06T12:40:00.000-08:00

Our cat keeps pooping on our bed. Help.

Via Wonkette:

2006-01-04T15:22:00.000-08:00

Did anyone catch this? Who else is reporting on it?

Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. (Boston Globe)

You have GOT to be kidding me.

2005-12-27T10:43:00.000-08:00

Hallooo! A quick note as I recover from a weekend spent in the heaving bosom of my family.

Husband and I looked forward to the holiday weekend with, as always, a mixture of anticipation and trepidation. Any fears we had were mitigated, however, by the discovery of the magic-formula-for-burying-familial-tension: intense physical activity followed by heavy drinking.

I recommend this to everyone. Spend your days with your loved ones engaged in some sort of really exhausting exercise- for us it was skiing, but I'd imagine that skating, swimming, hiking or bicycling would do just as well- and on return to the homestead, break out the scotch. Any simmering stress will be effectively tamped down by the third "Jim Beam, neat, with a beer back" and everyone will love everyone, probably demonstrably.

Case in point- this past weekend. My brother and his boyfriend, both normally neurotic and prone to panic attacks, were reduced to platitute-spouting, happy shells of their former selves. My brother and I even vowed to keep in touch more and better (considering that I am what I am, and he's a corporate partner in another biglaw universe, I'm guessing that resolution will be short-lived, but whatevs). My dad regaled us with the same 3 stories 10 times each, as per usual, but this weekend we actually found them funny, at least for the first 5 times or so. We lamented politics, laughed at the absurdity that was the University of Akron playing in a bowl game, and generally had a very nice time.

Happy holidays, everyone. I promise more frequent and hopefully more interesting posting in the new year.

Dramatic Recounting

2005-12-16T10:09:00.000-08:00

Noisette: "...so I got a response back from Senator Boxer, and it was the same damn hurricane Katrina form letter she sent to me three months ago when I wrote her about Katrina the first time. What the hell? The issues are different now! She can't even be bothered to write a new form letter?"

Husband: "You know what you are, right?"

Noisette: ".....?"

Husband: "You're that crazy woman who writes her Senator every time she reads an article in the newspaper. You know Boxer's staff are totally like- 'Oh god, it's that damn Noisette woman again. What's she griping about now? Good lord, Hurricane Katrina again?? Just send her the Katrina form letter."

Noisette: "Omigod... you're right. What have I become? I've become that insane lady all the staffers hate! All I ever do is write my goddamn congressman/senator/whatever! It's the Bush Administration's fault! 5 years of their bullshit has turned me from a normal, functioning 20 something into a bitter, old, semi-brain-addled crazy lady! Oh, the humanity!!!"

And... scene.

Hesitantly hopeful

2005-12-15T12:46:00.000-08:00

It keeps coming today!

From Wapo:

Feds to Rebuild New Orleans Levees:

"President Bush is requesting $1.5 billion more to help make the levee system in New Orleans stronger than it was before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast.
At a news briefing at the White House, officials dodged the question of whether the levees would be built to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, using broader language instead to promise that the city's citizens would be safe and the levees would be "stronger and better." ...

The additional $1.5 billion that the president is requesting would pay to armor the levee system with concrete and stone, close three interior canals and provide state-of-the art pumping systems so that the water would flow out of the canals into Lake Pontchartrain, Powell said.
Officials said the levee system would be rebuilt to its previous level of protection before the hurricane season next year, and that the process of strengthening them further would take two years."

Of course, it's not $32 billion, and they're avoiding the "Category 5" issue, but attention- and money- has been paid.

This is notable too:

In a Shift, Anti-Prostitution Effort Targets Pimps and Johns:

"A national campaign against prostitution has intensified in political, nonprofit and law enforcement circles, so much so that yesterday the House unanimously passed novel legislation, with the Senate expected to follow.

In the past, police sweeps have focused on the women. The new federal law would grant state and local law enforcement agencies funds to investigate and prosecute the men -- brothel owners and pimps."

This end-of-year legislative flurry has yielded some gems (hopefully). Here's hoping the trend continues.

***Update- more good news!
From NY Times:
Senate Is Set to Require Details on Secret Prisons: "The Senate is poised to approve a measure that would require the Bush administration to provide Congress with its most specific and extensive accounting about the secret prison system established by the Central Intelligence Agency to house terrorism suspects."

Heavy Sunni Turnout Is Seen; Attacks Are Scattered and Light: "In a day remarkable for the absence of large-scale violence, millions of Iraqi voters, many of them dressed in their best and traveling with other family members, streamed to the polls today to cast ballots in a nationwide election as Iraqi leaders predicted that the vote would split almost evenly between secular and Islamist parties."

Good times, y'all.

Civilization triumphs

2005-12-15T09:50:00.000-08:00

Thank god. Or whomever. McCain. Thank McCain.

From today's WaPo:
"The House gave strong support yesterday to a measure that would ban torture and limit interrogation tactics in U.S. detention facilities, agreeing with senators that Congress needs to set uniform guidelines for the treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism.

On a 308 to 122 vote, members of the House supported specific language proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. Though lopsided, the vote was largely symbolic and does not put the language into law.

The vote specifically instructed House negotiators to include McCain's language, word for word, in the fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill, a decision that is not binding but carries significant political weight."

Ok, so it's symbolic. We'll have to watch carefully to see how the final legislation shakes out. But 308-122! 107 Republicans! This is good news, folks.

The upshot (I think, I hope): we don't suck. As much.

And you know, kudos to McCain. He's spent the past month standing up to Cheney, Bush, Hadley and various other minions. The man has balls. And unlike every member of the administration including the Secretary of Defense, McCain knows what it means to be in war, to be a POW, to be tortured.
Thanks, Senator. We can now begin the long process of restoring our credibility in the world.

UPDATE: From the NYTimes: "After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday."

Just in case you thought this problem was solved

2005-12-13T10:01:00.000-08:00

From today's NYTimes editorial:

"We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum. ...

The city must rise to the occasion. But it will not have that opportunity without the levees, and only the office of the president is strong enough to goad Congress to take swift action. Only his voice is loud enough to call people home and convince them that commitments will be met.

Maybe America does not want to rebuild New Orleans. Maybe we have decided that the deficits are too large and the money too scarce, and that it is better just to look the other way until the city withers and disappears. If that is truly the case, then it is incumbent on President Bush and Congress to admit it, and organize a real plan to help the dislocated residents resettle into new homes. The communities that opened their hearts to the Katrina refugees need to know that their short-term act of charity has turned into a permanent commitment.

If the rest of the nation has decided it is too expensive to give the people of New Orleans a chance at renewal, we have to tell them so. We must tell them we spent our rainy-day fund on a costly stalemate in Iraq, that we gave it away in tax cuts for wealthy families and shareholders. We must tell them America is too broke and too weak to rebuild one of its great cities.

Our nation would then look like a feeble giant indeed. But whether we admit it or not, this is our choice to make. We decide whether New Orleans lives or dies."

Did anyone actually think that our beloved government would make good on its promise to rebuild New Orleans? If so, there's some lakefront property in Cleveland I'd love to sell you.*

This is, of course, unacceptable. The article mentions that the cost of rebuilding the levees, the most concrete (no pun intended) step to rebuilding the city, would cost our coffers $32 billion. By the way? The House just approved $95 billion in tax cuts (even as they contemplate gutting social programs like Medicaid and Medicare, but that's another story). The feeble refrain warbled out by morons shackled to their corporate donors remains that "tax cuts grow the economy." You know what else would grow the economy? REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS.

I'm about to write my senators and congressperson. I'd like to urge any of you who happen upon this post and happen to live in a red state to do so as well. I say this because I know the response I'll get from Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman. It'll be something like "I, too, am concerned about the state of New Orleans' recovery. I have been fighting in Congress/the Senate to pass legislation to rebuild the levees. Unfortunately, the Republicans have fought my every effort, and the legislation remains stalled in committee."

If you live in a red state, urge your representatives to recognize that rebuilding New Orleans is not a partisan issue. Help them to understand that short-term catering to their special interests will gain them a lot less street cred (and good karma) come the 2006 elections than participating in a national effort to rebuild the city.

As the NY Times editorial points out, time is short for New Orleans. Let's do what we can to force the hands of those who answer to us.

You can find out who your local Representative is here.

*Cleveland does in fact sit on Lake Erie- but much of the Cleveland lakefront is underdeveloped and dilapidated. For whatever reason, a city with amazing access to a great body of water has done little to develop what you'd think would be its most desirable property. Poor Cleveland. Anyway, I probably should have said "property on Lake Pontchartrain" but I thought that might be too cynical, even for me.

Why I Love Andrew Sullivan

2005-12-09T12:34:00.000-08:00

I do love him. I do. I don't agree with him on the things that make him a conservative and me a liberal (I don't feel like elaborating), but we agree on probably the most fundamental, crucial question facing this country now: is there any situation, any "ticking time bomb," any extenuating circumstance in which the government should sanction the use of torture?

In the National Review Online (yes, the National Review Online), Sullivan takes fellow conservative Charles Krauthammer to task for writing an article defending the use of torture in particular "ticking time bomb" situations. The idea is this: if you've captured an al qaeda operative who knows the exact location of a bomb that is about to go off and kill innumerable innocents, you should torture him, if need be, to get the essential information out of him and diffuse the bomb. Torture is thus condoned in certain controlled situations.

Sullivan speaks to this and explains why this attitude, while perhaps vicerally understandable, is nonetheless wrong; and why we do much more harm than good, globally, by engaging in torture, even in extreme situations.

"Torture is the polar opposite of freedom. It is the banishment of all freedom from a human body and soul, insofar as that is possible. As human beings, we all inhabit bodies and have minds, souls, and reflexes that are designed in part to protect those bodies: to resist or flinch from pain, to protect the psyche from disintegration, and to maintain a sense of selfhood that is the basis for the concept of personal liberty. What torture does is use these involuntary, self-protective, self-defining resources of human beings against the integrity of the human being himself. It takes what is most involuntary in a person and uses it to break that person's will. It takes what is animal in us and deploys it against what makes us human. ...

The infliction of physical pain on a person with no means of defending himself is designed to render that person completely subservient to his torturers. It is designed to extirpate his autonomy as a human being, to render his control as an individual beyond his own reach. That is why the term "break" is instructive. Something broken can be put back together, but it will never regain the status of being unbroken--of having integrity. When you break a human being, you turn him into something subhuman. You enslave him. This is why the Romans reserved torture for slaves, not citizens, and why slavery and torture were inextricably linked in the antebellum South. ...

Indeed, the very concept of Western liberty sprung in part from an understanding that, if the state has the power to reach that deep into a person's soul and can do that much damage to a human being's person, then the state has extinguished all oxygen necessary for freedom to survive. That is why, in George Orwell's totalitarian nightmare, the final ordeal is, of course, torture. Any polity that endorses torture has incorporated into its own DNA a totalitarian mutation. If the point of the U.S. Constitution is the preservation of liberty, the formal incorporation into U.S. law of the state's right to torture--by legally codifying physical coercion, abuse, and even, in Krauthammer's case, full-fledged torture of detainees by the CIA--would effectively end the American experiment of a political society based on inalienable human freedom protected not by the good graces of the executive, but by the rule of law."

There is no situation extreme enough to warrant the use of torture. In doing so, we may obtain information (often flawed, actually)- but we sully the very principles on which our society is based, and in doing so destroy it. I'm not ready to do that. I'm not ready to end the American experiment, not yet.

Thanks, Andrew Sullivan, for pointing out that we need to remain on our guard, because the Bush Admin. seems just about ready to indulge the darker, more fearful side of our collective nature and ruin everything we hold very dear.

Another day, another blogfight

2005-12-08T11:31:00.000-08:00

Why do I do this?
I posted a "chin up" comment to Opinionista's latest lawfirm lament, and a random commenter saw fit to attack me. And of course I let him/her get to me, and attacked back. Why do I let these people draw me in and ruin my mood?
Here's the thread of the "argument:"

"I've had that happen too. It's total human error- you can think you researched the entire spectrum of cases and there's the one elusive one that you somehow missed. Which is the problem with litigation research- there's ALWAYS an unturned stone. That's why I'm corporate. Anyway, point being that it's a totally understandable error, one that Ogre dude has surely made himself. Don't sweat it too much. You're spot-on with the partners playing on our insecurities left over from childhood- even at my relatively mild bigfirm, I see that happening all the time. We just have to try to stay sane and remember that we are adults and in charge of our destinies." Noisette 12.07.05 - 6:12 pm

"Noisette: Your comment above and the context given in your own blog leave many unanswered questions, let alone "unturned stones." First, you allege a "vast readership" for your blog. Yet barely a handful of commenters even post. Next, you note that you understand that a "noisette," your blog moniker, is a type of rose. You "understand" that it is a type of rose, but don't know for sure. If you live in Los Angeles, don't you live near the Rose Bowl in Pasadena? In other words, couldn't you find out what kind of rose you are? Or are you implicating Shakespeare's retort the unimportance or seeming unimportance of names, i.e. "A rose by any other name..." Or Maybe Gertrude Stein's "A rose is a rose is a rose." Who is your literary partner in crime, Noisette? Last but not least, in your post on capital punishment, you remark that you looked at protesters outside your office window one day. Yet you claim to be a corporate lawyer. In NYC or Chicago, Noisette, you couldn't even draft an officer's certificate or amend boilerplate DE law organizational papers for an LLC or the like without someone coming in to make sure you were actually doing that rather than gawking at a protest. What is going on?"
Smith 12.07.05 - 7:46 pm

Hello? So of course I responded:

"Umm... Smith? Calm down. The "vast readership," the "type of rose"- were meant ironically. Familiar with irony? (Familiar with the phrase "irony is wasted on the stupid"?) (also, just for clarity, there is a type of rose called "noisette.") I work in downtown Los Angeles at one of the 25 best lawfirms in the country. I'm not going to tell you which one. I overlook a main thoroughfare and the other day there was a protest against the execution of "Tookie," the founder of the gang called the Crips. We knew it was his protest because we received a firm-wide email warning us that the street in front of our building would be closed. Finally, what the hell is your problem? And if you have so many complaints about my blog, why not tell me ON my blog, rather than gunking up O's comment box (and O, I know I'm guilty of that too, but assignations like Smith's must be responded to)." Noisette 12.07.05 - 11:01 pm

And I got this response for my pains:

"Noisette: Irony may be wasted on the stupid, but discretion, on your part, is not the better part of valor. If the letter to the editor about capital punishment that you sport on your blog gets published, you will be outter than the parking lot, much less left field or the bleachers over at Dodger Stadium. By the way, while you are standing up for Tookie, have you ever done any charity work across the freeway in Chavez Ravine or down the 110 in South Central? Have you now? Do tell. I won't argue with you any longer or shorter here. That said, who would want to argue with you on your blog? Who reads it?" Smith 12.08.05 - 2:29 am

Well, I couldn't let that lie...

"Smith, for all your fancy phrasing, you sound a bit idiotic. My whole POINT is that no one reads my blog, on which I don't post enough or thematically enough to merit a large readership. My husband and a few friends read it. And so I poke fun at myself. My letter to the editor probably will not get published, but all the better if it does, because I don't make much of an effort to maintain my anonymity. I just don't particularly care to have you know who I am. That said, a few facts: I graduated from a top 10 law school, I'm at a top 10 law firm, I do quite a bit of pro bono and devote my spare time to political causes I believe in. I'm happily married and have 2 spectacular cats. I'm pretty unassailable. I don't know why I let people like you get under my skin.Sorry, O." Noisette 12.08.05 - 11:42 am

I'm of course as much to blame as he/she is for getting drawn in. It happens when work is slow.

But just for the record- I WASN'T sticking up for Tookie. Learn to read, fucktard.

Republican Simplicity

2005-12-03T12:36:00.000-08:00

Ok, I promised my vast readership a follow-up to the ABC Aids prevention post. I thought maybe I'd do more research and really compare and contrast different prevention techniques. That's not going to happen. Instead, I humbly offer you my opinion.

I think the Bush Admin's approach to AIDS prevention echoes not only their particular strategy for dealing with just about every obstacle, but really reflects the Republican approach to the world. Here's what I mean:

1) the Bush Admin has made a career of simplification and polarization. 9/11 became "Us or Them." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, despite cultural and historical differences, became the "Axis of Evil." Our "War on Terror" was easily reduced to black vs. white, good vs. evil, holy Christians vs. heathen Muslims. This simplicity, while obviously lamentable in that it glosses over nuance, complication, etc., has advantages- people respond to it. It's much easier to think of Muslims (extremist ones, anyway) as simply evil (and more moderate Muslims as... well... misguided). Why try to understand a people so different, and so violent? There's no point in comprehending why a people hate us- if they hate us, they must be on the wrong side of history. Period.

2) As I've said, this approach is appealing. The Republicans in general grasp this and use it to their advantage. Don't try to present the nuances, the complications of an issue to the American people. Just memorize your talking points memo, repeat ad nauseum. People hear you and understand you, and if enough of you say the same things enough times, people will believe you. Repetition works. Dems haven't grasped this (whether they should or not is another issue).

3) My ultimate point- this simplicity applies to AIDS prevention in the same way that Nancy Reagan's "Just say 'NO'" campaign applied to drug use in the '80's. It's easy, it lends itself to repetition. Fighting AIDS is as easy as A-B-C. Of course it is! It's a sound bite, and its facility is easy to get your head around.

4) The problem with this approach is, of course, that ultimately it doesn't work. Nothing is that simple. "Just say 'No'" didn't work because - what do you say no to, exactly? No to peer pressure, no to curiosity- but is it the same "no" for cocaine as it is for, say, marajuana? If you try marajuana once and you don't die, have you fallen into the abyss of "bad kids" because you didn't "Just say 'No'?" The Reagans' "War on Drugs" failed for many of the same reasons, I think, as the "War on Terror" is failing now. Simplicity is all well and good in theory, but a failure to understand the basic psychology and culture surrounding exactly why people do things, is ultimately fatal to the cause.

5) Ditto for AIDS prevention. Read some of the articles I quoted below to understand why preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa is ridiculously far from being "as simple as A-B-C." And complicated, nuanced problems call for complicated, long ranging, and yes, expensive, solutions. It may not fit into a sound-bite, but real progress against AIDS in Africa encompasses the whole alphabet, and then some.

Shame on the Bush Administration for not grasping this. A lot of people will die, in the many "wars" we are fighting, in the name of simplicity.

Lamenting Tookie

2005-12-02T12:33:00.000-08:00

Here's a letter I wrote to Eugene Robinson in response to his column, "No Special Break for Tookie," in WaPo today:

Dear Mr. Robinson,
I was making exactly the point you made today in your column, albeit less eloquently, to my colleagues as we watched a rally for Tookie take place outside our office window in downtown Los Angeles. Tookie doesn't deserve clemency because he is a special case. He shouldn't be executed because NO ONE should. Capital punishment is one of the most shameful stains on a country which holds itself out as civilized (the torture of detainees being perhaps equally shameful). The fact that Tookie might get special treatment speaks to the widespread misapplication of this punishment more than it does to any relative merit Tookie might possess as a celebrity inmate. Those who are advocating mercy in Tookie's particular case should direct their energies toward the abolition of capital punishment in this country in general. Thousands of similarly repentant but unknown men and women might then be spared.
Thank you for expressing so well what I have long believed.

Sincerely,

[Noisette]
Attorney
Los Angeles

Here's another WaPo article on the death penalty.

World AIDS Day

2005-12-01T10:17:00.001-08:00

President Bush said this today:

"We're working with our partners to expand prevention efforts that emphasize abstinence, being faithful in marriage and using condoms correctly. This strategy, pioneered by Africans, has proven its effectiveness, and America stands behind the ABC approach to prevention."

Interesting. I erred in my post yesterday by not including the administration's emphasis on condom usage.
It's important to note, however, that this is not a shift in policy- it's been the Bush Admin's consistent approach to the issue. And yet African AIDS programs that accept American funding in exchange for promoting this program have been markedly less successful in fighting the epidemic, as my post yesterday pointed out. What gives? Let's go back to the article:

"In a news briefing yesterday, Dybul [deputy global AIDS coordinator at the White House] denied that U.S. assistance in the AIDS fight came with strings attached and relied too heavily on abstinence programs.
'The notion that there's an excessive focus on abstinence is just untrue,' he said. 'The policy both in the guidance we issue and in the programs we support is fully A-B-C -- abstain, be faithful, and correct and consistent use of condoms.'"

Ok, Dybul, I'll bite. The Bush Admin's programs have been unfairly slandered. But really? Let's dig a little deeper on this.

Another article in last year's WaPo mentions this:

"Most prevention messages, and certainly those favored by the Bush administration, focus on the "ABC" approach to fighting HIV-AIDS: abstinence, be faithful, and use condoms. While important messages, these things are often not within women's power to control. It is urgent that we develop a "DEF" approach that responds to needs repeatedly expressed by women living with HIV-AIDS and by AIDS activists in Africa.

The need to go beyond "ABC" grows out of the stark statistics. Sixty percent of those living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are women and girls. Girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are infected at rates as much as five times higher than boys their age. This disproportionate impact is linked to social and economic factors that severely undermine women's control over their sexual lives. In a climate where sexual abuse and exploitation of women and girls are widespread and usually goes unreported, how can they practice abstinence? When married women, many of whom were child brides, have been faithful to the husbands who are infecting them, how do messages about monogamy help them protect themselves? When girls are pulled out of school to take care of sick relatives and are denied opportunities to gain skills that would break their economic dependency, how can they avoid survival or transactional sex and negotiate condom use?"

Hmm. Interesting. But Wait! There's more.

"Abstinence-only policies
Uganda receives significant amounts of funding from America, and much of the PEPFAR [The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] money is being channelled through pro-abstinence and even anti-condom organisations which are faith-based, and which would like sexual abstinence to be a central pillar of the fight against HIV. This money is making a difference - some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is "abstinence only".
Small community-based organisations are increasingly shifting the emphasis of their prevention programmes to comply with the agenda of PEPFAR's favoured donors. This change is also being encouraged by evangelical churches within Uganda, and by the First Lady, Janet Museveni. Around the country dozens of billboards have sprung up promoting only abstinence to prevent HIV infection.

Condom shortages
In 2004 the Ugandan government issued a nationwide recall of the condoms distributed free in health clinics, due to concerns about their quality. Although tests showed there was nothing at all wrong with the condoms, the government said that public confidence in the brand had been badly dented, so they would not redistribute them. By mid-2005 there was said to be a severe scarcity of condoms in Uganda, made worse by new taxes which made the remaining stocks too expensive for many people to afford.
Some have said the US is largely to blame for the shortages. According to Stephen Lewis, the UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, "there is no question that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven and exacerbated by PEPFAR and by the extreme policies that the administration in the United States is now pursuing".
Mr Lewis has also said that PEPFAR's emphasis on abstinence above condom distribution is a "distortion of the preventive apparatus and is resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred".
However, speaking in August 2005, Uganda's coordinator of condom procurement at the Ministry of Health denied there was any shortage of condoms, and said that new stocks would be distributed soon. She also said the government was committed to promoting all three parts of the "ABC" strategy: Abstinence, Faithfulness and Condoms."

So if ABC doesn't work, what's to be done? WaPo makes some suggestions:

"I asked a leading Ugandan AIDS activist about the lessons of the "ABC" campaign in his country. He replied that "ABC" is insufficient without "D," for "disclosure," which incorporates the importance of knowing your HIV status, changing your behavior appropriately and living positively. Yet women living with HIV-AIDS risk violence or abandonment in disclosing their status and are often blamed for bringing the virus into the household, even when their partners infected them. To address those realities, "D" should be "disclosure in safety," to help women disclose their status with appropriate social and economic support structures, including legal recourse in cases of violence. Training police and law enforcement officials on the links between gender-based violence and HIV-AIDS establishing safe shelters and referral services for women and girls, and providing support to women living with HIV-AIDS are examples of programs that would help women to disclose safely."

I'm not done. The contrary voice needs to be heard as well. But alas, no time. Here's some further reading, if you care:

Why ABC doesn't work:
http://www.iwhc.org/resources/gettingreal.cfm
News South Africa

And why it may:
USAID
http://www.natap.org/2003/Retro/day33.htm

I want to write more on this. Hopefully I will, later.

Aid my ass.

2005-11-29T19:55:00.000-08:00

So there's this:

"Bush said U.S. aid to Africa has tripled during his tenure" (CNN online, June 8, 2005)

"Mr Bush has pledged $15bn to fight HIV/Aids, primarily in Africa, over the next five years." (BBC Online, July 8, 2003)

And the most egregious:

"HIV / AIDS:
AIDS alone has left at least 11 million orphans in sub-Sahara Africa.

The Bush Administration launched the Global AID Fund and initially contributed $200 M.

Today the Administration has committed $500M for FY02 and 03.

The Administration is providing approximately $1B in FY02 and 03 for global HIV/AIDS." (Whitehouse.gov)

I'm touched. Really. The Bush Admin trumpets again and again the fact that they are giving more aid to Africa, in monetary terms, than the Clintons. But I don't have to tell you that it's not just the amount of money that counts, it's what you do with it.

See, the Bushies are in thrall to the Religious Right. And while we all may suffer here for that allegiance, third-world, AIDS-ridden nations are suffering all the more. Why? Because the beloved Bushies REFUSE TO GIVE MONEY TO AID ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROMOTE CONTRACEPTION AS A MEANS OF THWARTING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE HIV VIRUS.
THE ONLY WAY TO "FAMILY PLAN," ACCORDING TO THESE ASSHOLES, IS TO AVOID SEX ALTOGETHER.

But say that the sex you have is not the result of your proclivities, but the difficult, powerless situation in which you find yourself. Here in America we have the rule of law; women who are sexually abused can bring charges against their aggressors; there is punishment for men who take advantage. But in, say, Uganda? Not so much.

What if abstinence isn't an option for you? Or what if, even if you remained abstinent until marriage and faithful during your marriage, your partner does not?

Instead of promoting practical measures to avoid the transmittal of HIV/AIDS in many parts of the world where sex is currency and abstinence not an option, "abstinence-only" programs completely ignore the situation on the ground in these places and promote Christian morality at the expense of peoples lives.

Human Rights Watch honored a Ugandan woman this year who advocates for the rights of women and children affected by HIV/Aids. Beatrice Were contracted HIV/AIDS from her husband to whom she was faithful. One of the first Ugandan women to openly declare her HIV positive status, Beatrice fights against the "abstinence-only" programs that the US and US-funded agencies promote exclusively across Africa.

"Since 2004, Ms. Were has worked with Human Rights Watch and other organizations to highlight Uganda's recent and dramatic backslide in HIV-prevention policy. Uganda earned international praise for its highly successful HIV prevention programs in the 1990s. But the country has recently embraced U.S.-funded “abstinence-until-marriage” programs which deny young people information about any method of HIV prevention other than sexual abstinence until marriage, including information about condoms." (Human Rights Watch: Uganda)

This is the brave African aid package that the President trumpets. Not only is the HIV situation not getting better- it is getting worse on his watch. Bush should be ashamed- in this as in much of Bush's domestic and foreign policy, the President imposes a narrow Christian morality on a world he doesn't, and doesn't care to, understand. This willful ignorance is not only pathetic, it's dangerous. And cruel.

Beatrice Were spoke to us at the LA Human Rights Watch dinner. She spoke plainly about her own life and Uganda's struggles. I was both impressed with her courage and ashamed for my country- conflicting feelings that I've had a lot, lately.

New fun toys for your procrastinating pleasure

2005-11-22T09:43:00.000-08:00

It's going to be a late night for me here at Lillyfirm. I've made my peace with that. Still, as I look with trepidation toward the at-least-12-hours that stretch before me, I long for silly distractions with which to procrastinate. And- lucky me (and you)! Ask and I shall receive!

From the lovely Ms. Gumption comes this: an email time capsule to the future. Write yourself an email that will be delivered to your inbox in 5, 10 or 20 years. I'm doin' it.

I also urge all you desk-bound saps to check this out: www.pandora.com. Aptly named "The Music Genome Project," Pandora allows you to create innumerable playlists based around the musical attributes inherent in your favorite song or artist. For instance, if you enter "Thievery Corporation," it will create a playlist that exemplifies electronica roots, a tight base sound, acoustic riff and trippy instrumentals (their take on Thievery Corp). I believe this little algorithm has saved my career. Try it.

Cutting/Pasting: The Return

2005-11-21T11:05:00.000-08:00

No time, no time but heard the below on NPR this morning and was struck by how eloquently Penn Jillette (yes, the magician) summed up similar thoughts to mine on god, or lack thereof:

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire? ...

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."
-- From "This I Believe," on NPR's Morning Edition

PS- I have so very much to tell you. Maybe there will be time tonight.
PPS- I passed the California Bar Exam.
PPPS- Dick Cheney is the essence of all that is very, very, very not good.

Early Evening Anecdotes

2005-11-16T19:45:00.000-08:00

I'm actually home at a reasonable hour this evening, my husband has a dinner, I have filled a glass of wine, and before I get too drunk to write I thought I'd regale my legions of faithful readers with this:

Once upon a time I was a housewife in a French public housing project. That is absolutely true. My boyfriend/fiance at the time (we were planning to get married, but engagements weren't as sort of formal there) worked for the state train company, the SNCF, and as a perk to offset his paltry salary we were offered cheap state housing. What we got was a three bedroom apartment with paper walls in a public housing unit outside the city limits for about $200/month. Not bad. We also got free first class tickets on any train anywhere, but that's another story. Nico worked long hours and although I supplemented our income as best I could with private lessons and a part-time job teaching English in a vocational high school, I only worked about 20 hours a week. I was also doing a master's degree at the local university, but that required little class time and a lot of independent study. I would eventually depart for a research trip to Senegal which would change everything. I'm telling you about the months before Senegal, though; when I spent inordinate amounts of time alone in that crappy apartment, with two semi-feral cats, teaching myself the best ways to cook horse meat or skate. I am not exaggerating for effect. This was my life.

I had no car and the public transport in Nantes was dependable but slow. Nico had got me a dirtbike for Christmas one year- with huge tires and a funky frame it was completely ill-suited to suburban streets, but still I rode it all over that damn town giving English lessons. I would advertise in the local newspaper: "American Student offers private lessons at $15/hour." Don't forget that French is an inherently sexist (or sex-filled? both, really) language. In English you could print the above phrase and noone would know whether you were male or female. In French, though, your sex is obvious. "EtudiantE americainE donne cours particuliers d'Anglais a 100F/l'heure." As a result we received hundreds of obscene phone calls. "I want to fuck me a little American student." "You can give my cock English lessons, American bitch." Eventually I stopped answering the phone completely and let Nico sort the good apples from the bad. Usually he could tell a dangerous call right off- male, over 20, no address, no reason for wanting to learn English, just wanted lessons from "la petite americainE." And so it went.

One evening we got a call from an older woman, who explained that she wanted a refresher course in English before travel to America. She lived in a working-class area where I had several clients, and seemed eloquent and nice. Normally I would insist on meeting any future student for the first time on neutral ground, in a cafe or restaurant, before agreeing to meet them at their home. This particular woman seemed so innocuous I was willing to bend my rules. We made a date and I biked the 40min ride to her apartment complex. Like mine, it was state housing; prettier, though, with hedges and flowers and cut grass. I buzzed her apartment and she let me in.

The first thing I noticed on exiting the elevator and entering her apartment was the darkness; then the smell. Both were startling. The woman was already seated at a long table in the family/dining room. Someone else was rustling in the kitchen. The woman gestured to me and I sat down. "I've hurt my leg," she explained, "I can't stand up." I pulled my materials from my bag; a workbook, a tape recorder, some copied articles from Newsweek. "Oh no, I have my own methode." She produced a book from 1960 or thereabouts, no doubt her high school workbook, it emphasized the old French way of learning English- direct translation and grammar, no conversation. Whatever- I never insisted on following a curriculum if the client had their own ideas on things- whatever kept them happy.

For ten minutes we played a boring game of language ping-pong: I read her a phrase in French; she translated it; I corrected her. She stopped, then; "I've actually prepared something in anticipation of your visit. Would you read it and tell me if it's accurate?" Sure. She handed me a piece of paper. The words written on it were in French. I was puzzled.

"Mademoiselle: I am being held hostage by the French government. Do not react visibly to this letter as my apartment is bugged and they watch everything I do. The French government wants to keep me quiet. They broke my leg and have since kept me too drugged to leave the apartment. I am so drugged as I am writing this that I can barely keep my eyes on the paper and my hand steady. I contacted you because you are an American citizen. I want you to take a letter to the American Embassy in Paris. The letter explains how I am being held hostage in this apartment and how my human rights are being violated. I know the American government will help me, and I need you, a citizen, to deliver my plea. Please help me- you are my only hope."

I dropped the piece of paper to the table; I looked at her, completely stunned. I glanced around the apartment- it was a typical state apartment, bare, decent- no bugs or security cameras. I looked into the woman's eyes. She was crazy. I listened for the person I'd heard in the kitchen. Where was he/she? Did they know about this?

"Madame... I don't understand. You called me and hired me to give you an English lesson."
"That was a pretext. I need you to carry my plea to your embassy in Paris. Is it a money issue? I will pay your way." She took a checkbook out of a bag.
"NO- no, madame. It's not a problem of money..." I was desperately confused. "I understand that you're in trouble- but I don't think my government can help you."
"Yes, they can. The American government helps those in need. Please, you must understand."
"But, Madame, there's no way I can help. The embassy and consulate are there for official state business and to help American expatriates. They will never interfere in a French domestic situation. Please... I don't understand what you want me to do." I felt myself becoming frantic. I felt faint and I checked the hallway for a quick way out of the apartment. What the FUCK was going on?
"PLEASE. Just take the letter. Deliver the letter. I'll pay your way." I was panicked. I quickly thought through everything I knew. This was completely beyond my realm of familiarity.

The woman swayed in her seat. "Don't you SEE? They are drugging me!" The person in the kitchen came around the corner, slowly, alarmed by the noise. I looked to her and tried to gesture- HELP! She disappeared again.
"Madame, madame, I'm sorry. I can tell you are in distress and I want to help. But don't you see that I can't? I wouldn't even know whom to give the letter to! I can't accept your money when I know I can't do what you want!"
"Please help me, mademoiselle."
"Madame, this is absolutely crazy! I don't understand what you are asking me to do! The French government isn't keeping you hostage! This apartment isn't bugged! Please stop!!" I yelled. She grew quiet.
"You won't help me, then." I felt terrible. This woman was obviously insane- her leg was in some sort of splint and whatever drugs she'd been given must have addled her brain. There was no other explanation. I thought of yelling for the (caretaker?) in the kitchen. I didn't dare, though; the woman's twitchy nature in the dark apartment made me sure that she'd jump at me if I yelled for assistance.

She was Miss Havisham in a French working class apartment. She was evidently desperately unhappy- she had determined that her injuries and her confusion were a government plot, and that America was her only salvation. She had seen my ad for English lessons and grasped at it as her only hope. I felt awful for her, and very frightened.
"I am sorry, Madame." She didn't respond. Her head fell to her chest. I waited.

She snapped up. Her attitude had shifted- she was smiling. "Ok, mademoiselle. Shall we continue with the lesson?"
Are you fucking kidding me? But she opened her workbook and gestured to me. Slowly, haltingly, I read a sentence in French. She translated it. I corrected her.
15 minutes went by. She looked up from her workbook. "Thank you. May I call you to schedule another lesson?"
I got out of there as quickly as I could. I raced home on my awkward dirt bike, conscious only of the fact that I had just lived the strangest hour of my life.

A few months later I would leave for Senegal and not come back, not really. In the meantime I would give countless lessons to Nantais convinced that my American-ness meant that I'd make a good English teacher. The woman never called again for another lesson; obviously I'd never have come near her again. Five years later I'm still completely amazed that that happened to me, and I wonder what became of that poor woman. Was she eventually committed? Did she ever sober up from the drugs that were making her paranoid? Did anyone ever manage to convince her that America was not her salvation?

All we have is a voice...

2005-11-15T11:06:00.000-08:00

Compassion is the most human of feelings. It transcends sympathy. It mitigates the mindless barbarity and animal instinct that propel us through our days.

Milan Kundera has this to say about it: "There is nothing heavier than compassion. Not even one's own pain weighs so heavy as the pain one feels for someone, for someone, pain intensified by the imagination and prolonged by a hundred echos."

Last night, at the Human Rights Watch annual dinner, the banquet hall was thick with the word. But when one of the honorees, Salih Mahmoud Osman, a lawyer from Sudan, looked at the audience intently, imploringly, both kindly and combatively, and urged us to understand that "Darfur is not so far from here, not really," did we get that? Did we catch that phrase, in between our mouthfuls of chicken kiev and our well-meaning but somewhat awkward applause?

I can't help but worry that compassion is a load that I'll find, on balance, too difficult to carry.

More later.

Update

2005-11-11T14:56:00.000-08:00

The Standard Hotel downtown has a funky rooftop bar - white bubble chairs (or whatever you'd call them), foosball tables, yellow plastic chaises longues on astro-turf, fabulous people, etc. At the moment, this bar is empty. Next door to the Standard, on the roof of a nondescript office building, 100ish people are milling about setting up to shoot (film or still, can't tell) what can only be an exact replica of the Standard rooftop bar, down to the chaises longues and the foosball tables. I am VERY amused.

Friday Morning %$&**&!!!!

2005-11-11T09:19:00.000-08:00

I just discovered Opinionistas (I know, I'm late to the party, welcome to my life) and I do recommend it, it's quite well written (although her habit of sticking a last-sentence "twist" on the end of every post gets a little... predictable). It's also got me thinking (like any good blog should do)... I got it MAD good here at Lillyfirm. A few observations:

1. Although "O" definitely hyperbolizes a little for literary effect, I think she's right on in most of her descriptions of NY lawfirm life. I was a paralegal at a NY firm in a former life, and a bigger bunch of womanizing, sexually harassing, back-slapping, kiss ass carnivorous boys-club denizens I have never since encountered. (I apologize to any of my old firm friends who may read this - I can think of one who might- I love you but you know what you are).

2. Her expositories on the hours and hours of mind-numbing work are right on vis-a-vis big firm law in general. That is not avoidable, if you choose this life. And I do say choose because, no matter how much we whine that we had to take this job because we owe so much in loans and public interest jobs are so hard to get and our law schools forced us to be here etc.- we all had a choice. Bottom line- there were other jobs, from government to non-profit, out there for us and we took this path willingly.

I digress a bit- but I have had the dubious honor of working in four different biglaw firms in the four top US markets: NY, DC, Chicago and LA- and although the atmosphere and attitude change the work is always the same- soul killing. Either you become the obnoxious, aggressive partnership-grubber for whom you currently harbor disdain or your ideologies and dreams you carried with you through law school devolve into depression. There's no way around it, kids- this is what you get (or give up, maybe) in exchange for that fancy six-figure salary.

3. That said (or belabored- I'm a grouch this morning), Opinionistas' well-crafted blog makes me selfishly happy, because the above complaints notwithstanding, I got it good here at Lillyfirm. The work is the work, and it's always the same, but the people I work with are kind, forgiving, patient and generally happy with their lives. Sure, there are the screamers and the malcontents- at a firm this size there are bound to be- but generally, those with whom I've come in contact have been extraordinarily pleasant. Maybe it's LA (all that sunlight addles the brain), or maybe it's Lillyfirm (I haven't visited Lillyfirm's NY office so I can't make the city comparison), but I've said it before and I'll say it again: If it's firm life you want or need or can't avoid, work for Lillyfirm. The end.

Of course, I realize the silliness of all of the above, because although I'm recommending my firm I'm not about to divulge its actual name. Oh well- it's my blog- I can be silly if I damn well please.

Right back where we started from!

2005-11-09T08:11:00.000-08:00

Eureka! The great state of California and its progressive citizens have chosen... the status quo. But that's a good thing, when the alternative is a hard-core power grab by Ahhhnold. One would think he'd have known better, with poll numbers sagging, than to attack public employees and unions in a left-wing state. Will it be "lesson learned" for the governator? Or will he follow the lead of his GOP elders and refuse to listen when the people tell him to stuff it?

Importantly, too, Proposition 73 (parental notification for minor abortions) failed 52%-47%, despite a last-ditch effort by conservatives to guilt Cali's evangelicals to the polls. A Christian right leader on NPR this morning lamented that they had been out-spent 3-1. I for one am glad my Planned Parenthood donations are paying off, so to speak.

I am punchy today as I arrived at my desk with satchel and shining morning face ready for an 8am meeting, only to find out that the meeting had been cancelled at 2am by a harried associate (and rescheduled for tomorrow morning 8am, what joy).

Ah Lillyfirm, your minions do march into battle smiling wide, we do.

Yes, I'm procrastinating...

2005-11-07T17:25:00.000-08:00

This is an email I just wrote to Andrew Sullivan:

Dear Andrew,

I think "Dr. Dalyrimple" as quoted by Ian Murray makes a very valid point. I am a lefty and a francophile but I completely agree that the riots that are occurring in France right now are not the result of Muslim extremism but rather result from a disaffected population of children-of-immigrants that has no productive outlet for its frustration and aggression. I do admire France's social programs and the willingness of its population to pay a great deal in taxes toward general social welfare; the problem with this, as we're seeing now, is that welfare programs take the edge off surviving but don't address the malaise that comes with institutionalized joblessness and discrimination. The French need to face this problem head-on. Yes, that probably means some liberalization of the market and concomitant marginalization of the unions, in order to grow the economy and increase jobs. It also means educating the greater French population as to the history and the current situation of these mostly North andWest African immigrants and their children, instead of ignoring them and relegating them to ghettos. Until the government and the French as a whole address the underlying source of the aggression and frustration expressed by these young people, the tension we see now will not abate and France will face a violent future.

[Noisette]
Attorney
Los Angeles

***Update: Andrew Sullivan made exactly 0 references to my email in his recent postings about the France riots. Sniff. I want some Sulli love. Why, oh why doesn't he love me???

Mali, more or less, from the spectacularly-technologically-challenged...

2005-11-04T17:05:00.000-08:00

l'embarras du choix

2005-11-03T14:34:00.000-08:00

So, so many things to blog about today. So, so very little time. I'm also jetlagged out of my mind. Hallucinatory dreams brought on by malaria pills wake me up at odd points in the night. (Oh, poor baby! Had to run off to Mali! Has to take special pills! Is tired from her flight! Has to make a living!)

I'm going to limit my comments today. First, appealing to my love of irony is the recent revelation via WAPO that the CIA interrogates "terror suspects" (and has since 9/11's aftermath) at a series of "black sites" including former Soviet detainment camps in Eastern Europe. I defer to my favorite libertarian pundit, Andrew Sullivan, for appropriate elaboration:

"You have to hand it to the Bush administration. They get their symbolism right. In Iraq, they chose to commit some of their worst abuses at Abu Ghraib, Saddam's former torture hell-hole, and at former Baathist Secret Police headquarters in Basra. Witnesses attest to the sound of screams coming from the Basra facility as the United States continued its diplomatic offensive to win over the Mulsim world to democratic values. And when needing a secret site to torture other detainees, where else but the former Soviet Union?"

(then he says something about Reagan's commitment to human rights which I am choosing to omit because I don't agree with him. I feel justified in selectively quoting him because the Reagan comment is beside the point.)

Deuxieme probleme du jour: According to this morning's LA Times, Proposition 73, which Californians will soon vote on and which would mandate parental notification for minor abortions, is favored by a slight majority of Cali's voting public. Now, if the idea of California, that bastion of social liberalism, imposing such a requirement on its teenage girls is not enough to make you shudder, consider this, brought to my attention via a colleague here at Lillyfirm:

"Prop. 73 is essentially a parental-notification amendment. However, there's a much more sinister problem with the proposition; the Right-wing is clever and, as usual, they're operating under the radar. Prop. 73 also includes language that specifically defines the embryo as "an unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born" -- a dramatic shift in defining when life actually begins. If this proposition passes, California will have a constitutional amendment that defines life at the point of conception. This would be a lethal blow to the right to an abortion in the state of California."

Et enfin, I bring to light this surreality- although I am back at my desk here in Los Angeles, my digestive tract remains firmly anchored in the Sahelian plains of Mali. Good times.

Hello from Mali

2005-10-23T08:40:00.000-07:00

Quick hello to any who may read because I have 10 minutes left on a very slow internet conection. I am very hot. We are the unversal "toubab" here- purchasers of trinkets at inflated rates and purveyors of "bics" to small children. I had forgotten what it's like to be so conspicuous. We paid an immam to let us into his mosque- entirely made of mud and straw. bulging arches like I've never seen before. Our guide and I argued the merits of polygamous marriage. Best mutton in peanut sauce I've ever had. Good times.
Take care. Maybe I'll bring you back something, if you're lucky. Until then I remain your ever-so-red-sand covered (yeah, you know you want me)

Noisette

The World at 18

2005-10-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

I am procrastinating. I'll be here until midnight at this rate. Still, the mind wanders. And inevitably, I meander over to Stephanie Klein's. A little torture, a little laughter. I read yesterday's post where she whines that she doesn't like feeling guilty about reveling in her accomplishments. The comments were a little harsh- I revel in my accomplishments, too, to some extent, except that my inner critic always whispers "you didn't deserve that." I also don't count things like "lead in the school play" as among the happiest moments in my life. But whatevs. It's not like I'm so great.

In her post she links to an earlier post (a painful habit of hers)- one that features a quote from William Jennings Bryan which she apparently put below her picture in her high school yearbook:

"Destiny isn’t a matter of chance it’s a matter of choice. It’s not a thing to be waited for; it’s a thing to be achieved."

Lovely quote, yes, yes. But seriously, doesn't this point to a lack of curiosity? She must have found it in some "notable quotables" book and didn't bother to find out who William Jennings Bryan actually was. If she had, she'd know that he was a prominent anti-evolutionist that argued against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Bryan argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Of course, that was the 1920's, and of course, the mores of the population were quite different, Darwin wasn't the (mostly) acceptable quantity that he is today, etc.

Still, that's not a person whose quote I'd stick below my picture on my high school yearbook. Not someone I'd particularly like to be identified with. The question begs answering- was the 18 year old Ms. Klein guilty of a telling lack of curiosity? Or did she know this about Bryan, and still wish to quote him? I'm not sure which is worse.
Who did I quote in my high school yearbook, you ask? Why, the spectacular Omar Khayyam.

"Dreaming, when dawn's left hand was in the sky,
I heard a voice within the tavern cry:
Awake, my little ones, and drink the cup
Before life's liquor in its cup be dry."

Juxtaposing these two quotes now, mine and Stephanie's, I'm struck by their prescience. Stephanie's points to blind ambition- success at any cost, even if the inspiration for the success is somewhat... suspect. Mine presages nothing more than my present drinking habit. I thought I was being clever; Stephanie was being... well, what she is- predictable, un-subtle. But both quotes speak to our present situation more than either of us could've guessed at the time.

Il est cinq heures au Mali

2005-10-11T10:06:00.000-07:00

I can't lay these photos out for shit. Sorry. Here's where we're off to next week- Mali. Husband's aunt and uncle are intrepid travelers, and are along to supplement their African ceremonial sword collection. Husband is along because he's a great sport with a taste for the exotic. I'm along because -dude- this is the part of the world where I made my life decisions. I was living in Senegal and I decided to leave my then-fiance, quit my dream of academia, come back to America and go to law school. Good decision? Who knows- but it was a decision.*
So now back to the land of incredibly tall people who hold hands as they talk, 5am calls to prayer, spectacular music, more sand than you'd ever really want to encounter.
Anyone been to Mali? Any tips/recommendations?

*Obviously the leaving of the fiance was a good decision. Leaving of academia? Jury's still out.

ATTENTION MUST BE PAID

2005-10-06T11:23:00.000-07:00

Ok, peeps. Here's the call to arms (yes, I mean that ironically)(I know this post looks long and boring but please read)(via Andrew Sullivan):

MCCAIN AMENDMENT SA 1977

TEXT OF AMENDMENT SA 1977.

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.SEC. __.

PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.—No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[Page S10909]

(b) Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.—The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.—In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

The good news: this amendment (to a military spending bill) passed the Senate 90 to 9. That's great news, actually. Colin Powell has signed on, giving it his approval. Great support for a much needed piece of legislation.

The horrifying, frightening news is that Bush plans to veto it. Oh yes. However, if it passes the House with similar numbers, the White House may just be cowed into silence.

Taking a cue from Andrew Sullivan, I'm asking you to write your Congressperson to let him/her know how strongly you support this amendment. You can find out the stats on your Representative here.

Washington Post article here.

Rumination --> Disgust --> Anger --> Depression

2005-10-04T10:18:00.000-07:00

See, here's the thing with the Miers nomination. I want to enjoy it- I want to enjoy watching (reading) die-hard conservatives squirm, lament, suddenly realize that "even Kerry might have been better than this." And I do enjoy it, on various visceral levels. But this is the SUPREME COURT. Bush's intransigence in the face of scrutiny from within his party and without are amusing, in a cynical way, when he, say, appoints his "message nanny" (Karen Hughes) as "Undersecretary of State for trying to talk the Middle East into liking us." That was more funny than dangerous. Harriet Miers as the next SCOTUS justice- mmm... not so funny.

Michelle Malkin (yup) quotes a Randy Barnett editorial in the WSJ which sums up the educated conservative take on Miers and frankly my take as well. (As an aside, Randy Barnett is a law prof at BU and was the mentor of my favorite professor, Marcus Cole, a groundbreaking libertarian whose take on contract law is pretty revolutionary and who is now working at the Hoover Institute at Stanford (I think).)

"By characterizing this appointment as cronyism, I mean to cast no aspersions on Ms. Miers. I imagine she is an intelligent and able lawyer. To hold down the spot of White House counsel she must be that and more. She must also be personally loyal to the president and an effective bureaucratic infighter, two attributes that are not on the top of the list of qualifications for the Supreme Court.

To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered "judicial philosophy," by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers's professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people. It is not enough simply to have private opinions on these complex matters; a prospective justice needs to have wrestled with them in all their complexity before attaining the sort of judgment that decision-making at the Supreme Court level requires, especially in the face of executive or congressional disagreement.

Even a star quarterback with years of high school and college football under his belt takes years of experience and hard knocks to develop the knowledge and instincts needed to survive in the NFL. The Supreme Court is the big league of the legal profession, and Ms. Miers has never even played the judicial equivalent of high school ball, much less won a Heisman Trophy.
Ms. Miers would be well qualified for a seat on a court of appeals, where she could develop a grasp of all these important issues. She would then have to decide what role text and original meaning should play in constitutional interpretation in the context of close cases and very difficult decisions. The Supreme Court is no place to confront these issues for the very first time."

So while we Dems might be tempted to triumph at the confusion and disappointment going on right now on the right side of the aisle, we have to remember that this ill-qualified woman stands to influence all our lives. The Supreme Court is no place for cronies, no place to "reward loyalty," no place for a man or woman of questionable legal qualifications.

Lessons not learned- Bush's newest "Brownie Moment"

2005-10-03T10:42:00.000-07:00

No time to post anything of substance today but some food for thought:

"Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." (my italics)
David Frum, National Review Online, via galleyslaves.blogspot.com.

This woman needs to... meet more men, apparently.

Also, note the source of this quote. This from the National Review?

My prediction: the Senate won't confirm her. Thoughts?

Sensual girl-in-the-firm

2005-09-30T13:34:00.000-07:00

You have to wonder about the one grey hair. As though that one follicle just gave up, threw in the towel, decades (hopefully!) before the others.
"Fuck this. Who gives a shit about pigment. I'm supposed to produce a hair, that's what I'm doing. No embellishments, no 'little something extra'. I'll leave that to those annoying gunners in the sideburns."

I think I'm Lillyfirm's one grey hair.

From the "Laughing Diabolically" Department...

2005-09-29T10:28:00.000-07:00

First, and most obviously, Tom Delay. A delightfully unsavory person who deserves what he gets. I hope he goes down and takes all his evil cohorts (namely, Karl Rove) with him.

Next, we visit "The Meth-Driven Life." Remember when that woman supposedly saved herself and kept her captor/potential rapist from harming her by reading him selections of that maudlin, stupid book "The Purpose-Driven Life"? Remember when the Christian Right delighted in that story, and sales of that idiot book rose astronomically in consequence? Weeellll.... turns out he didn't leave her alone because he'd found god- rather, he didn't hurt her because he probably couldn't- because he was ON HER ICE.
Apparently the experience was shocking enough to cure her of her habit, which is nice.
And I quote:
"I was not going to die tonight and stand before God, having done a bunch of ice up my nose."
Poetry. POETRY!!!

And finally, "Ten Minutes From Effective" ...
Remember when Bush picked his crony, his simpering confidant, Karen Hughes, to be some sort of undersecretary in charge of improving America's image in the middle east? Remember when we laughed at that? Well, she's doing about as well as expected. She met with Turkish women earlier this week who basically told her to take her condescension and war-peddling ideology and preach it elsewhere. She then journeyed to Saudi Arabia, where the women explained to her that they were happy in their lives and that not being able to drive was not the life-sapping prohibition she assumed it was.
Now, I'm not here to argue cultural relativism- we'll save that for another post, perhaps. What I'm interested in giggling about here is Bush's catastrophic choices, from Mike Brown as head of FEMA to Karen Hughes, that relentlessly pro-US blind-Christian-Patriot, as the person in charge of burnishing our image in a region that hates all that she stands for.
Again, well done, Bush Administration.

Let's pigeonhole

2005-09-28T15:46:00.000-07:00

Here's a surprise:

You are a

Social Liberal
(73% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(10% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Socialist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

This Little Piggy...

2005-09-27T12:55:00.000-07:00

"I guess you want me to be the superhero that is going to step in there and suddenly take everybody out of New Orleans."

No- we just wanted you to do your fucking job, asshole.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/27/katrina.brown/index.html

Trouble meeting your quotas? Try this!

2005-09-21T15:14:00.000-07:00

I found this ad particularly disturbing:

http://www.clk4.com/NGD_10359/index.cgi

Check out the cool kids listening to headphones. Remember when the Army had... Army-themed advertisements?

I also enjoy the last bullet point:

plus free music!!!

Seriously, good luck with this, Army National Guard. It's a clever gimmick; still, one wonders how successful you'll be- tempting as the free music downloads are, I'm not sure I'd want to get my crap blown out of me in exchange. I mean, I'm just sayin.

Remember, "it's called serving your community while working part time." As though it's just a step away from working at Starbucks or something. Fascinating.

PS: "I also understand that I will be contacted by a recruiter, and that's OK with me!"- HA!

PPS: Aren't iTunes downloads, like, 99c a song? So someone responding to this ad would subject themselves to harassment by an army recruiter for the equivalent of less than $3? Good god! Not only is the army's choice of ad campaigns amusing at best, they're insufferably cheap!

Sign me up!!!!

Today's pretension

2005-09-21T10:45:00.000-07:00

"The person who cannot set himself down on the crest of the moment, forgetting everything from the past, who is not capable of standing on a single point, like a goddess of victory, without dizziness or fear, will never know what happiness is. Even worse, he will never do anything to make other people happy." Nietzsche, Use and Abuse of History for Life

Read this book years ago, hunted down the quote for a friend yesterday, thought I'd post it here.
The whole book (it's a short one) more or less centers around this theme. I've always been partial to this idea but lately I feel like this is exactly what the Bush Administration does. Except I'd bet my life on the fact that Bush has never cracked a book by Nietzsche.

I'll elaborate later.

Because I really only have one coherent thought per day

2005-09-20T10:00:00.000-07:00

Emily Messner discusses the Roberts confirmation hearings in today's WaPo and draws a startling comparison between the current hearings and Scalia's:

"While the debate on Justice Rehnquist took five days, the debate, if it could be called that, on Judge Scalia consumed barely five minutes.
The 50-year-old Court of Appeals judge was praised as thoughtful and fair by several senators, including Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who ... led the opposition to Justice Rehnquist. Senator Kennedy said that although Judge Scalia was a conservative, ''he is clearly in the mainstream.''" (quoting from NY Times, 1986)

Kids, if we have another Scalia on our hands, we're in serious trouble. Thomas + Scalia + Roberts + other bush appointee who's bound to be cast in this mold + Kennedy (who is easily manipulated) = not just a conservative majority, but a core of ideologues who have NO RESPECT for the past 50 years of Supreme Court decisions. Roe v. Wade would be just the beginning. These dudes could have a profound impact on the social and economic makeup of this country.

I will write more on just what I mean by that in future entries (no time, alas). In the meantime, here's the comment I posted to Messner's blog which summarizes why I think Roberts might turn out to be ok after all:

"Here's why the Republicans were wrong about Justice Souter- they liked his conservatism and respect for precedent, but seemed to forget that Supreme Court decisions, particularly with regard to individual rights, have been generally liberal since the 1960's. Thus, adherence to precedent means sticking to the generally progressive trend of the court and not overturning Roe v. Wade or any of the privacy decisions in that family of cases. Scalia and Thomas are the true ideologues- they want to uproot pretty much the entirety of post-war precedent, returning the court to what it was in the beginning of the 20th century, when decisions like LOCHNER threatened to make state and the federal government irrelevant. If Roberts says he has true respect for precedent, then, and means it, we might have another Souter in the court. If he's lying, and he's more of a Scalia/Thomas- well- what can we do?"

Any thoughts? Are we looking at another Souter (probably not, in all honesty)? Another Kennedy/O'Connor (more likely)? Or another Scalia, who stated in a speech a few years ago that he views the law as "the vengeful right arm of God"?

Onward Christian... Penguins?

2005-09-13T12:26:00.000-07:00

Read these for context:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/13/science/13peng.html?ex=1126756800&en=1a53375e704cbea9&ei=5070- Turns out a bunch of Christian right-wing groups have co-opted "March of the Penguins" as the silver screen Word of God.

http://lionsofgod.com/- this scary church (from my home state, of course) has organized group trips to see the film, urging members to download a "viewing packet" and, while in the theater viewing the film:
"use a notebook, flashlight and pen to write down what God speaks to you as He speaks it to you (in other words, please don't wait until the end of the film to write things down)"

Unfortunately, I saw the film on Saturday, before I knew about the church's viewing packet. What follows is a literary rendition of what I might have written had I been blessed with the packet and had truly contemplated God's work while viewing the film:

1. (Opening sequence) Wow, there are a lot of French names in the credits. Is this a FRENCH film? Why would God speak to us through the French? I thought God HATED the French! I mean, George Bush does, right?

2. (5min into film) Morgan Freeman certainly sounds like God. But... wait a minute... he just said the penguins had been in the South Pole for MILLIONS of years. I thought God created the Earth, like, 6,000 years ago. Is Morgan wrong- or is GOD wrong?

3. (15min) These penguins are beautiful illustrations of God's grace. Definitely.

4. (22min) This movie totally debunks the evolutionists. Stupid evolutionists. It's so obvious that some unseen hand created these penguins. But... wait... why would God make these poor birds live in Antarctica? And trudge back and forth from their breeding ground to the ocean at 70 miles a go, like, 4 times? Why not give them a little pouch where they could store food? Or some sort of camel-like hump? Does God like camels better than penguins? I'm confused.

5. (23min) The man behind me totally just took God's name in vain. He told me to "shut off the G** D*** flashlight" or he'd "f*** me up." Some people just don't get the importance of being in communion with God at all times. Stupid man. He must be a Lutheran.

6. (40min) The mother and father penguins' devotion to each other is surely evidence that God wants us to be monogamous. But... wait... Morgan Freeman just said that the mom and dad penguins desert each other after one mating season! They're not monogamous- they find a new mate every year! Wow! Is that what our church leaders mean when they tell us to be monogamous? It's so easy! I love the church!

7. (45min) Sad- an old male penguin just succumbed to the snow and wind. And none of the other penguins helped him. He must have been the poor black penguin.

8. (48min) Oh my goodness! The little baby penguins are sooooo cute! God will definitely keep all of the little cutie patootie baby penguins safe and.... oh wait... no! A little baby penguin froze to death! How could God let that happen? It must be the French people's fault.

9. (48.5min) The man behind me kicked the back of my chair and told me to "shut the f*** up." Apparently I was emoting rather loudly about the baby penguin. He's threatened to go get the manager.

10. (1.5hr) God's been saying a lot to me, but I'm afraid the guy behind me will "f*** my s*** up" if I turn on the flashlight again. By the way, that evil seal was obviously the work of Satan. Only Satan would create such a menacing and... blubbery monster. Get behind me, Satan.

11. (closing credits) That was fantastic. I've learned so much about God's plan for me in the world. Let's see- God wants me to be monogamous for at least a year at a time. He wants me to kidnap another baby if my baby dies of exposure to harsh elements. He wants me to avoid seals... or Satan... or black people... or the French. I'm a little confused about His message there. But at ANY rate, He DEFINITELY wants me to avoid the Lutherans. Or at least not sit in front of one the next time our church does one of these "viewing packet" things. I've learned so much. Thanks, God. Thanks, church.
And thanks, penguins.

Un Lundi Soir de Reve

2005-09-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

Amadou & Mariam concert last night. A blind Afro-Rock couple from Mali, I've been following them for a long time- and seeing them live last night made me absurdly happy. Several vodka-tonics later, I thought I'd set free the last shred of my dignity and attempt the Senegalese M'Bala dance, which involves shaking one's ass as hard as possible while keeping the rest of the body still. As I tackled this ancient art, I noticed a man to my left smirking at me with what I hope was amusement and pity (and not anger or something worse). I realized that I wasn't evoking images of West Africa so much as that of a silly drunk white girl grinding her ass into her husband's pelvis. As the man turned away, my husband whispered into my ear... "the man looking at you? That's DJ Danger Mouse." Oops.

In the balcony an awkwardly dressed white girl went to town with moves she'd no doubt learned from African dance class at the Encino Community Center. Next to her, in a batik dress and impeccably coiffed dredlocks...! Lisa Bonet!
Good times.

The great turn inward

2005-09-08T13:50:00.000-07:00

Reasons not to have a baby:

It is pure folly and hubris to bring a child into this crazy, mixed-up world
There are too many disadvantaged children in the world already who need homes like ours
I'm only 29
No more trips to Africa (at least not for a while)
No more trips to Asia (No! Say it ain't so!)
The inevitable serious career setback
The end of our rock n roll lifestyle
The inevitable move from our super-swank little shack to a larger, more mundane house in a less exciting part of town
The red-faced asking of parents for money for a down payment for said house
The risk of becoming "that annoying couple with the baby"
Being pregnant
Giving birth

Reasons to have a baby:

Raising a thoughtful, worldly, considerate, socially-minded child who will grow up to make a difference and will help move the world in the right direction
I'm almost 30
The kid will be smart
Educational, socially- and environmentally- respectful trips to exotic places with child in tow (when we can afford them)
We're thinking we might want to have more than one kid and if we have one now we can space them out so we don't have to squeeze them out all at once and have 3 children under 5 years old and become those harried, exhausted parents who've grown old before their time that you see in the children's book section of Borders
The much needed kick in the ass to force us to start saving and jumping onto the adult band wagon and building up equity and ... sigh...
Fulfilling my biological reason for existence
Being pregnant
Giving birth
Becoming a better person because I suddenly have a kid and it's all about the kid and I want to be a good person for my kid

12 reasons not to, 10 reasons to. Anyone have anything to add on either side?

Cutting/Pasting for your reading pleasure

2005-09-08T11:36:00.000-07:00

I don't have time to be clever or thoughtful today, but a quick perusal of Slate uncovered this tidbit:

"Because they don't see blacks as a current or potential constituency, Bush and his fellow Republicans do not respond out of the instinct of self-interest when dealing with their concerns. Helping low-income blacks is a matter of charity to them, not necessity. The condescension in their attitude intensifies when it comes to New Orleans, which is 67 percent black and largely irrelevant to GOP political ambitions. Cities with large African-American population that happen to be in important swing states may command some of Karl Rove's respect as election time approaches. But Louisiana is small (9 electoral votes) and not much of a swinger these days. In 2004, Bush carried it by a 57-42 margin. If Bush and Rove didn't experience the spontaneous political reflex to help New Orleans, it may be because they don't think of New Orleans as a place that helps them.

Considered in this light, the actions and inactions now being picked apart are readily explicable. The president drastically reduced budget requests from the Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen the levees around New Orleans because there was no effective pressure on him to agree. When the levees broke on Tuesday, Aug. 30, no urge from the political gut overrode his natural instinct to spend another day vacationing at his ranch. When Bush finally got himself to the Gulf Coast three days later, he did his hugging in Biloxi, Miss., which is 71 percent white, with a mayor, governor, and two senators who are all Republicans. Bush's memorable comments were about rebuilding Sen. Trent Lott's porch and about how he used to enjoy getting hammered in New Orleans. Only when a firestorm of criticism and political damage broke out over the federal government's callousness did Bush open his eyes to black suffering.
Had the residents of New Orleans been white Republicans in a state that mattered politically, instead of poor blacks in city that didn't, Bush's response surely would have been different. Compare what happened when hurricanes Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004. Though the damage from those storms was negligible in relation to Katrina's, the reaction from the White House was instinctive, rapid, and generous to the point of profligacy. Bush visited hurricane victims four times in six weeks and delivered relief checks personally. Michael Brown of FEMA, now widely regarded as an incompetent political hack, was so responsive that local officials praised the agency's performance.

The kind of constituency politics that results in a big life-preserver for whites in Florida and a tiny one for blacks in Louisiana may not be racist by design or intent. But the inevitable result is clear racial discrimination. It won't change when Republicans care more about blacks. It will change when they have more reason to care."
Full article here.

Very, very well put. A nice counterpoint to Kristof's op-ed in the times. Also a better answer than I was able to give to my critic in Mimi's comment page.

The point is that Bush et al did not just fail in the vacuum of Katrina and its aftermath. Their failure is, in a larger sense, the failure of the GOP to aim their policies and political mettle at the economically and racially disadvantaged. And why should they? These people do nothing for them. As noted above, when they do help out it's charity, not political necessity.

Kanye's Workout Plan

2005-09-06T13:55:00.000-07:00

I know everyone knows about this already, but to add to my earlier posts praising the eloquent and socially-conscious Mr. West, let me congratulate the earnest, angry Mr. West.

Nicely done, Kanye!

See also: Lindsay links to Kanye inspired t-shirts.

And finally: Daddy doesn't like it when rappers rip on his son. (Link via Wonkette).

A Shout-Out

2005-09-06T11:33:00.000-07:00

This is by far the most comprehensive list of relief agencies I've seen. Well done.

Something's hitting the fan (and it ain't flowers)

2005-09-05T20:34:00.000-07:00

When Michelle Malkin calls for the resignation or firing of the head of a former cabinet-level position, you KNOW something is terribly wrong in River City.

"Although the delay was not entirely the fault of the Bush Administration, Brown's complacency clearly didn't help. And his bumbling statements after the hurricane struck have not inspired confidence.
This is not the time to give a weak performer the benefit of the doubt. The FEMA director's role in the ongoing recovery effort is too important to be entrusted to a clueless political hack with such poor judgment.
Rather than praise Michael Brown, Bush should fire him."

Just days ago, Malkin was lambasting the liberals for even SUGGESTING that this catastrophe was preventable, and accusing us of playing dirty politics. Now she, like so many other GOP lackeys, is starting to understand where the future lies- and it doesn't lie with Bush or his administration.

Good luck, Republicans. These next few weeks are going to be quite the trial by fire for you. In my mind, you've already failed at the most basic requirements of government. Lets see if the rest of the country gets that. But when your guard dogs fail to defend you, for the first time in 5 years, you have to recognize that things are NOT good.

PS- did you notice she's quoting the LA Times? Has hell frozen over? Oh no, New Orleans is flooded, and thousands of the poor and disenfranchised are screwed, and America cares. And the best source of information, even for GOP talking heads, is the LA Times.

ACCOUNTABILITY begins at home

2005-09-02T11:55:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman in today's NY Times:

"At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.
Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about exactly that risk.
So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying."
Article here.

We can't forget this next year. These people must be held accountable. This is the administration that we reelected because they were supposed to keep us SAFE???

Update: While Nero Fiddled

2005-09-01T16:33:00.000-07:00

Screw apologizing, man. This guy needs to be brought down:

http://flickr.com/photos/dougs/39279606/

This is pathetic. The federal response to this disaster is pitiful. People are dying by the minute because no food or water is getting to them. And what is our esteemed leader doing? Playing the guitar and going to a birthday party.

More here.
And here.

This isn't playing politics. This is astonishment at our government's inability to either prevent or deal with this disaster.

Because there's always a finger to point.

2005-09-01T13:15:00.000-07:00

I'm just the bitch that wants to ruin this bipartisan outpouring of help and generosity, I guess. But we need to keep in mind how this disaster might have been averted and prevented. The WaPo op-ed points out:

"This administration has consistently played down the possibility of environmental disaster, in Louisiana and everywhere else. The president's most recent budgets have actually proposed reducing funding for flood prevention in the New Orleans area, and the administration has long ignored Louisiana politicians' requests for more help in protecting their fragile coast, the destruction of which meant there was little to slow down the hurricane before it hit the city."

In a nutshell, funds which could have gone to strengthening the levees and generally shoring up the city were diverted to the (what is it now?) "Struggle against Extremism"? Well, we're not winning that, but paying for the "struggle" has cost us dearly in other ways.

It's called accountability, people. Know it. Love it.

To counterbalance any negative feelings engendered by my post, here are some puppies.

Alienation and Frustration

2005-08-31T10:26:00.000-07:00

Holy crap.

"John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' " NY Times
Read the article here.

To be fair, I s'pose, if creationism is placed in a context, like "ok, here's what Christians believe," along with "here's what Muslims believe" and "here's what Buddhists believe," etc., in the name of pluralism, in some sort of course on "World Religions," I'll bite. But I'm guessing that's not what those that are pushing this movement have in mind.

What's fascinating, in a way, if one manages to distance oneself from this, is that this issue, which has basically been settled since the Scopes Monkey Trial, is back on the block 80 years later. What's going ON in this place????

One more thing. Those that proclaim America a "Christian nation" are correct only in that the majority of people in this country are Christian. But one of the roles of government is to protect the minority from the whims of a "tyrannous majority." Seems like it might be falling down on the job. Moreover (ok, another thing)- to say this country was founded on Christian principles is correct in that the men who founded it were Christian- and of course they were influenced by the mores of a religion subscribed to almost universally in the western world- but they were also guided by Enlightenment and purely capitalist principles, neither of which can be accurately labeled Christian (although I'm sick of idiots proclaiming that capitalism is the Christian way to be- do you really think Jesus was a capitalist, you morons? Render unto Caesar, remember that?)- finally (ok, one more thing), there is in the Constitution itself and in the first ten amendments a fundamentally pluralist vein, stemming from the fact that the first white people here came to escape religious oppression. And if you don't buy that, the 14th Amendment erased any chance of establishing a state religion. And yet, some 150 years later, we're having this inane debate.

I'm alienated and frustrated because I feel like I might have to leave the country I love because it's no longer the country I love.

Later in the day... oh dear LORD (spaghetti lord, that is) in heaven, this is funny. Thanks to Derek for the link.

Undoing the Folded Lie

2005-08-30T10:20:00.000-07:00

Ms Dynamite, It Takes More:
"Now who gives a damn/ About the ice on your hand/ If it's not too complex/ Tell me how many Africans died/ For the bagettes on your Rolex..."

Ms Dynamite is a funky British rapper w/social conscience in the vein of Talib Kweli. Good times.

PS- IMF (International Music Feed) is my new favorite channel. WATCH IT, damnit.

PPS- "S*** disturber." My new favorite expression. I love it. I love you too, Dickeybird. Someday you, Wifey, husband and I will have to grab a drink in some swanky Torontoian bar.