Portrait of the Lawyer as a Young Dog

Top 5 R.E.M. Songs

2008-04-14T16:29:00.005-05:00

As I listen to Accelerate, it dawns on me that I often forget how many truly great R.E.M. songs there are, partly as New Adventures in Hi-Fi (1996) was, for me, the last almost-up-to-Life's Rich Pageant-standards (see right) /no-weak-tracks album to date (Around the Sun was a strong, but not great). They really need a full-time drummer to remind the rest of them they are a rock band. I digress. The Top 5 R.E.M. songs are:

Begin the Begin—No pun intended.
What's the Frequency Kenneth?—Would be top 5 Side 1/Track 1, if we still had sides.
Finest Worksong—The remix, of course.
Losing My Religion—If you got tired of it, go back and listen.
Nightswimming—It's just priceless.

Honorable mentions could run up the rest of this page—by rights, Fall on Me should be #5, but Nightswimming is just hits a nerve that the others don't. Not including The One I Love almost hurts, and These Days will always hold a place in my shuffle. Bad Day is one of the best overtly political songs in a long time; put in your own lyrics if you're not of the same persuasion – the helplessness will hit home.

If you can't identify with the regret of Country Feedback, you've either lead a super charmed life or have no capability for reflection. While I've drifted from Monster a bit, listening to Crush with Eyeliner, Strange Currencies and Tongue, it's me, not the album. Most recently, Leaving New York is subtly intriguing; dark and hurt, but without the almost obligatory dose of self-pity. I could go on and on...

Anyway, narrowing the list down caused me to remember the release of New Adventures.... I remember a review described it as being 'sufficient until the next great R.E.M. album came around' or something like that. I was 18, so for a while I repeated that to others to sound smart. But The Wake-up Bomb and How the West Was Won? E-Boy the Letter, Leave and Electrolite? It was the next great R.E.M. album. Silly rabbit. I haven't listened to Accelerate enough to decide if it's still the last.

Look Behind the Eyes

2008-04-10T21:15:00.004-05:00

In this story, the Washington Post presents the Iraqi perspective on the recent Petraeus/Crocker "hearings," which is best summed up as "who cares." As an example, someone named Yasser Kadhoum al-Khafaji, who the WP tells me is a 31 year-old shop owner, announced,

I don't even know who Petraeus and Crocker are...I think these sorts of things are more important for Americans than they are for Iraqis.

I have to admit I had to be reminded who Crocker was. I will disagree with the second point, that these hearings are important for Americans. Ibba-dibba-dup…why? I mean the sheer media coverage means they are, but seriously, why?

The story also included a quote from the head of Moqtada al-Sadr's political arm, Liwa Smesim, who charged, "Presenting reports in front of the media and Congress has no use for us, for this is just a justification for the American forces to remain in Iraq." Smesim went on to "demand a complete pullout of the occupation forces as soon as possible. What we are seeing today on the TV screens is a failing charade, and it will fail by God's will."

The later part of that quote is pure bluster, but I think the first sentence is spot on, if a bit overstated. The hearings more evoked R.E.M.'s "Bad Day"—some of those Senators might have been anesthetized. But seriously, its fine and a necessary part of finding a way out of this mess. But it was a charade, as in Congress put on a show while we all jumped up and down in our seats and waited to yell, "Ooh, I know what they're imitating – important government activity!" Except for the jumping in seats part.

I'm not saying get everyone out of Iraq tomorrow – though putting a plan in place to have all but a training presence out prior to the 2010 midterms tomorrow would be nice. But the hearings were waste of time and money. Anyone paying attention knew what Petraeus and Crocker would say 10 days earlier, and smart people knew 3 months ago. The only value to the public was having McCain, Obama and Hillary give their views and plans, which they do from the campaign trail daily.

Now what would be interesting to see is Moqtada al-Sadr, Nouri al-Maliki and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander who allegedly mediated the recent violence, testify before Congress and, in turn, get to have Congress answer there questions...

Like sex without an orgasm

2007-03-07T08:59:00.000-06:00

I. Lewis "Scooter" (what a complicated first name) Libby was found guilty of various things, but in short, he lied.

The various editorials all try to find something interesting to say. The Post thinks this will "send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations." Doubtful. Every administration operates like a 16-year-old: so long as things are going well, they believe it can't happen to them, whatever "it" is.

The NY Times thinks the real problem is the effect on the media after Judy Miller and Matt Cooper's legal troubles. Again, I'm skeptical. Prosecutors and the media have to go another round before they find a balance again, true. But the real long term risk would be if the dissemination of information decreased, which it won't. Whether a leak is really a targeted, if back-channel, release of information — as in the Plame matter, or whether the leak is, in fact, a leak, they will always happen, the latter being just as much about humans' desire to gab and to feel important. Both the NY and LA Times express satisfaction that the law finally caught up with the administration.

Mostly, I identify with the LAT's caveat: the law caught up with Bush in the form of a perjury conviction. Of Cheney's assistant. Whoopee. I also agree with the jury: what is this guy doing on the hook. This whole thing has been totally unsatisfying.

The real question is whether Bush pardons Libby. Admittedly, this would seem bad for the integrity of government investigations. But, the question is how bad. As I alluded to above, each administration and each will-be scapegoat will continue to hide things, dodge and lie, because they all believe they won't get caught (until, of course, they do). Watergate. Iran Contra. Whitewater-Paula Jones-Monica Lewinsky. Now Plamegate. Libby going to jail might serve as a reminder of what can happen when you aren't forthcoming with a special prosecutor, but I doubt anyone will actually be more forthcoming with the prosecutor the next time around. And I have to agree with the jury: why are we sending this guy to jail? For f*#@~ sake, he writes really weird fiction!

But if you're sitting in W's shoes? You, or your Vice President told this guy to leak information, of this we're sure. Frankly, I'm fairly certain Bush or Cheney told Libby to lie about it later to the FBI and Fitzgerald. Slate's John Dickerson notes that if he pardons Libby, it will seem like Bush admitting he is a fall guy. The problem is that everyone knows Libby is, in fact, a fall guy. So if Bush lets him go to jail, he is not only a less than wise, narrow-minded, wanna-be-oil-company CEO masquerading as a president, he is a coward. If you're Bush, the right thing to do is pardon him and accept the political consequences.

Pardoning Libby is likely poor (and insignificant) public policy, but I will loose what little respect I still have for this president if he allows Libby to go to jail.

Is the sky blue, or does is just seem so?

2007-03-05T10:37:00.000-06:00

The poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has rightfully become a big deal.

Evidently, its just a matter of perception, per the following quote:

It looks terrible; which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm’s way, is now neglecting them when they’re injured and need care and help.

This is not coming from a Karl Rove memo, but from FOX News Anchor and Managing Editor Brit Hume (read: not a political commentator, officially). No, Brit, ... c'mon BRIIIIT, the problem (outside of the fact that your name is Brit), is that it is terrible. Reality, not perception or DNC politics. Please, go back and think of a better spin; one that doesn't sound like it came from a Rove talking points memo.

Will some one please make the bad man stop!

2007-03-02T09:40:00.000-06:00

The recent firing of 8 U.S. attorneys is becoming a thorn in the side of the Justice Department and the Bush Administration. It seems Congress is taking issue with firing federal prosecutors for, well, being prosecutors. Most people believe that a U.S. attorney (which, incidentally, is not an easy job to get) should prosecute crime with as little thought as possible for what political party of which the target is a member. “Most people,” however, does not include the Bush Administration.

This story is interesting on a few levels. First, it seems the fired attorneys largely kept their mouths shut until a Justice Department claimed that the firings were for poor performance. Now I’m not sure what answer the official could have come up with when he was asked “Why did you guys fire so many people at a time?” But I’m pretty sure insulting the departed lawyers and further damaging their careers was the wrong one if the administration wanted to sneak this one by.

More important though, is the substance of the matter, firing U.S. attorneys for pursuing Republican officials (such as former Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA), whose career (and freedom) ended when he plead guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion) or supporters, is yet another example of the efforts of this administration to become the most overreaching executive branch in history.

We all talk about the checks and balances in our system of government, but the fact of the matter is that many of them are observed as a matter of custom. I doubt there is a law to prohibit firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons, but just about everyone else knows it’s a bad road to go down. If the entire government, including federal agencies and cabinet departments — all the way down to the rank and file staff level — society loses. It looses stability, consistency, reliability, independence and even trustworthiness, from parts of the government that are supposed to be all those things.

But the Bush Administration has never thought this was a concern. These people will politicize anything, even some random woman’s death, so over-politicizing (I’m not saying the job didn’t cross paths with politics) the U.S. attorney position is no surprise. What I can’t understand is why they don’t see the danger in this. Unfortunately, unless the Democrats succeed in making the administration to suffer for this latest Machiavellian/Rovian (which is worse?) stunt, the next Democratic executive will sadly try the same shit. So does W. think that Republicans will be in power for all of eternity? Or does he just figure do as much damage as you can in eight years before graduating to the speaking circuit and corporate boards?

If we just believe, really hard, that the world is flat ...

2007-02-28T13:31:00.000-06:00

The Washington Post reported the following:

More than one-third of American women are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), which in rare cases can lead to cervical cancer, by the time they are 24 years old, according to a study being published today.

Aside from being a startling statistic, it seems this is much higher ("about two-thirds") than we thought it was, due to this study using a "more accurate" (CDC's phrase) measure. There is, however, some good news:

News of the higher-than-expected prevalence of HPV infection was balanced by the discovery that only 2.2 percent of women were carrying one of the two virus strains most likely to lead to cervical cancer -- about half the rate found in previous surveys.

Actually, there is better news: we now have a vaccine for HPV. And progressive bastions such as Virginia and Texas, as well as 16 other states, have taken steps to require young women to be vaccinated. But some people don't think we should include the vaccine with the other shots we give kids. Here is where we fall into the twilight zone:

Some parents have objected to school mandates for HPV vaccination of girls, arguing that because the infection is transmitted only through sexual contact, it can be avoided by choice. Others believe the vaccine may lower inhibitions against sexual activity, although there is no evidence that fear of HPV infection is a reason many teenagers abstain.

These people must be crazy, you say? You are clearly forgetting that if teenage girls know they can't get HPV, they will have sex all the time! They can still get herpes, the clap, gonorrhea, syphilus and, oh yeah, AIDS, but when we vaccinate against HPV, look out! In fact, wonderful organizations such as the Family Research Council oppose universal vaccination.

Oh good heavens. I don't even know where to start. I mean, seriously. I suppose we shouldn't give flu shots or treat the common cold in teenage women either, because when you're sick you don't want to have sex.

At first, I assumed that the reason these people oppose vaccinating for HPV is that the believe it's Gods answer to the awful moral degradation of today's culture -- cervical cancer is a Plague from God and who are we to frustrate His Will??? (I apologize for the annoying use of capital letters.)

But The Nation's Katha Pollitt offers an explanation that is slightly less insane - but more dangerous as a practical matter: if HPV is not a threat, conservatives can't scare people (as much) by emphasizing that condoms aren't "perfect" protection against STDs (some authorities note that condoms aren't as good at protecting against HPV as they are against other STDs, others remind us that it's still better than unprotected sex, but - yes, Virginia - not as safe as abstinence).

Either way, the sheer tonnage of disregard for what will actually keep teens safer is mindboggling.

Where did they find these people?

2006-12-12T15:34:00.000-06:00

I read today that a recent poll showed President George W. Bush's approval rating at 37% (as of Noon EST today). Most commentary on this would be how low that is, how far he's fallen from the 90%+ numbers in 2001-2002, etc. What I think is more important is what the f#@$ are those 37% of the people polled thinking????

I am not, in any way, shape or form, surprised that 37% of the population is "conservative," or votes republican, were that what the number represented. It doesn't. The question is "Do you approve of the job this man has been doing as President of the United States of America?" Who could possibly approve of what he's doing? Have you read the papers lately? He's not being a good coservative, a good liberal, a good moderate, a good anything.

Poorly thought-out priorities and values, overly ambitious goals, an inability to play well with others and the fact that his political and governing skills are not up to the task of making up for those failings have finally proven what the left has thought all along: the man is inept.

But his approval rating is still 37%???? Bush's approval rating is like polling Detroit Lions fans and finding that, despite their 2-11 record, 37% of their fans still "approve" of their play. I guess sticking with Karl Rove is kind of like sticking with Matt Millen, save that we can laugh at the Lions, but the President's blunders aren't so much funny as depressing.

Is he related to Howard ...

2006-12-12T15:10:00.000-06:00

It remains to be seen if his talent can match past and present Brazilian greats, but Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva, who has been labeled a "wonderkid," already has one thing on the others, his nickname is far superior. I'm not usually a fan of soccer/football's penchance for using nicknames in place of given names for anyone who ever wins a major award (and some that don't). The NBA has started to do this, too — Kobe, Carmelo, etc., as if no one else has these names. But if your nickname can reference an animal with webbed feet, its OK in my book.

It's nice to be able to go by your first name alone. As if that's all that is necessary; you "own" that name -- even when it's a terribly common first name, as in the case of Ronaldo Luis Nazário de Lima (a.k.a. Ronaldo). Though one often has to wait to fully own the name — the chubby Brazilian we now know as "Ronaldo" went by Ronaldinho while Ronaldo Guiaro was promient and Ronaldo was still "inho" (little).

This, in turn, forces others, such as Ronaldo Assis de Moreira (now known as Ronaldinho), to go by interim nicknames (Ronaldinho went by "Ronaldinho Guacho" until Ronaldo fully owned the name "Ronaldo," opening up "Ronaldinho." I know. See this is the problem.)

The worst problem is you get old (and fat) and then someone else younger, faster and, now, better, has your first name for a last (second) name and then there is confusion and fans chanting about how there is only one you, and you're not it.

It's better if your name is totally made up, like Edson Arantes do Nascimento (a.k.a. Pelé). Where the name came from, no one knows, but so long as it isn't a common real name, if and when your skills diminish, you don't have to suffer the insult of being confused with younger players. On the other hand, if you're Pelé, you could go by the Portuguese equivalent of John Smith and that name might just be yours. He was like MJ and Tiger. Truly one of a kind.

But its best if your name is both unique, cute, clever and requires stacatto pronunciation. Alexandre Rodrigues da Silva goes by Alexandre Pato or Pato Alexandre, which translate roughly to "Alex the Duck." It remains to be seen whether he follows in the footsteps of Pelé, Ronaldo and Ronaldinho: Brazilian stars who have been (or are) considered the best soccer/football player in the world (or in the case of Pelé, the best ever). But if he even achieves the success of "lesser Brazilians," i.e. Marcos Evangelista de Moraes (Cafu) or Vítor Borba Ferreira (Rivaldo), that and his nickname should make for interesting marketing. And at least we won't have to worry about which Alex the Duck we're talking about.

Feingold’s censure push: the GOP would like you to think it’s extreme …

2006-03-20T20:01:00.000-06:00

Much has been made about how no one much supports Sen. Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) attempt to censure President Bush for illegally spying on U.S. citizens. While politically quixotic, it is unquestionably correct action, assuming one believes Bush clearly broke the law, as Feingold does.

If a president clearly violated U.S. law, whether the violation is criminal or not, he should be censured, if not impeached. I might discuss impeachment another day, but I’m not sure if I think its appropriate in this case and, either way, it is such an impossibility at this juncture that I don’t have time. Censure, on the other hand, is purely political – a warning shot if you will. It would be Congress saying “Watch it, pal,” something this administration seems to need to hear.

Backing up, I say clearly because were a president to non-criminally violate the law but had a plausible legal theory (which I don’t think Bush does) as to why he or she thought there would be no violation, censure would not be appropriate, though legal action in the judicial branch – a.k.a. a lawsuit – would.

In this case, congressional action is even more important as the secret nature of the spying makes it hard for anyone to challenge it. You have to be harmed to sue in U.S. courts, and (like it or not) the ACLU is going to have a tough time arguing the ACLU has been harmed by the president’s spying program.

So back to the Senate and the Senate judiciary committee: if any member believes the president clearly violated a U.S. statutory or constitutional provision and refuses to vote to censure that senator is playing politics and being a chicken shit for good measure. They are also acquiescing to the diminishing of Congress’s power. In short: they suck. A lot.

Blogger's note

2006-03-20T19:17:00.000-06:00

Outside of lacking for quality, this page has lacked for quantity. I’d say “never again,” but sadly we know how often that promise gets broken. So I’ll say nothing and try to blog more. I’m also going to toss out my ideas on totally unimportant things that might actually be fun to read, and not just in my stupid top 5 lists.

So for the three people (maybe) who read my blog, it should get better.

Top Five Guilty Pleasures (Music)

2006-03-06T10:16:00.000-06:00

5. Fall Out Boy
4. Linkin Park
3. James Blunt
2. Usher
1. Dashboard Confessional

A couple friends and I had been discussing music we liked. We all tends towards snobbish when it comes to music, but at least keep our snobby horizons broad. One can't live on The Decemberists and White Stripes alone.

The discussion turned to music we liked, despite the fact that we couldn’t consider it “quality” music. Thus: the guilty pleasure. I actually think all the above artists make some music which cannot fairly be denied the "quality" label - nor the designation as a work of art, albeit minor. They all also unabashedly make pop, which isn't bad, just pop-y.

The Black Eyed Peas might have been on the list, but their new album is not even a guilty pleasure; it's just bad music.

Words, Words, Words

2006-02-07T14:30:00.000-06:00

Oh. One other thing: the words of the statute Gonzales is talking, the “plain language,” the authorization for the war in Afghanistan, are these:

… the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (Link)

This cannot be read in any reasonable way to support spying on U.S. citizens without going through the FISC. This is an authorization for military action, not law enforcement. As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said: "This authorization is not a wiretap statute. We know what the wiretap statute looks like. This is not it."

Modern reality dictates that the line between war and law enforcement blurs at the middle. But spying on domestic phone calls is not the middle – it’s the extreme.

And even if the AUMF can save this little peek-a-boo program, where would this power end? Neither Gonzales, nor anyone else in the administration has given a stopping point to the power. Thus, under the administration’s interpretation, if they think tapping Sen. Ted Kennedy’s phones might help national security, it’s legal. Likewise, if presidential stress is getting in the way of national security, Congress gave him the power to alleviate that stress: by having an intern camp out under his desk for a little occasional relief. Why try yoga, when you have an AUMF.

I just can’t resist one more party shot. When Gonzales said that the AUMF and FISA (the law Bush is ignoring) can be read as complementary, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) responded “Well, that just defies logic and plain English.” Finally, Bush’s poor command of the English language is coming back to bite him.

Maybe Focus on the Family Was Right (a.k.a. Conservative Subsidation of Historians)

2006-02-07T11:12:00.000-06:00

Back when Al Gonzales’s name was being tossed around as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court, conservative groups got cranky and the president’s yes man got to stay put. It was supposed to be because Gonzales wasn’t pro-life enough for conservative Christians who, after all, had “won the election” for Bush and, as such, were owed.

Now we find out, however, that Mr. Gonzales would be unacceptable to anyone seeking a “justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.” Scalia has said, in his book A Matter of Interpretation, that interpretation is “guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time.”

Yesterday, however, at the kangaroo court “investigating” (loose term) the Bush administration’s spying on U.S. citizens without a warrant Gonzales argued the authorization for the war in Afghanistan "legalized" the program. He said the following, after admitting that "at least some members of congress" did not know they were approving spying on U.S. citizens:

"[W]e are a nation governed by written laws," Mr. Gonzales said, "not the unwritten intentions of individuals."

You see what I’m getting at? Holy schnikies!! Alberto Gonzales is not an originalist!!!

OK. Before we go down this fairly nitpicky road, Gonzales was talking about statutes. Scalia was describing constitutional interpretation. Also, Scalia usually does what Gonzales said when interpreting a statute: First look to the words, words, words (of the statute). If that doesn’t answer the question, then look to legislators’ intentions. All the time, courts should avoid absurd results.

Now you’re asking why I started this post. Scalia and Gonzales agree. Gonzales is still attorney general because he wasn’t pro-life enough to be a Supreme Court justice. Correct on both counts. But Gonzales’s quote shows us the inherent idiocy of true Originalism, which Scalia’s quote best defines: apply the text as the Framer’s understood it. Originalism, as defined by its creator, doesn’t like anything external to the text.

The original intentions, however, are not a part of the Constitution. Quite to the contrary, much of the time the “Framers' intentions” are hard to find, confusing and even contradictory (thankfully Thomas Jefferson’s opinions are technically out of bounds since he was in France in 1787, or the whole inquiry would be pointless; Mr. Jefferson can be called down on both sides of almost any debate). As an aside, if originalists got their way, historians would make a bundle as expert witnesses. So originalism does have one positive point: more demand for history majors.

There is another version of conservative (but not nutty) constitutional interpretation; textualism. There we interpret the constitution similar to statutes: look at the words. Clear? Full stop.

If we have an ambiguity, then let’s look to other sources of information. One of these could be the framers intentions; other possible suspect could be public policy, civil liberties, a “search for greater freedom” or, my favorite, utilizing the constitution’s “great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.”

I’m no textualist. But if there is a defensible right-leaning method of constitutional interpretation, this is it folks. I digress ... The intentions of the framers are an influence external to the text. Scalia contradicts himself (not the first time, not the last). Originalism is bunk.

All in a good day’s work.

Top Five (minus 1) worst calls in Super Bowl XL

2006-02-06T08:39:00.000-06:00

4. Illegal block in the back penalty on Seattle QB Matt Hasselbeck. For tackling the guy with the ball.
3. Holding call on Matt Locklear 2 plays before Ike Turner Interception. If refs consistently called Locklear's blocking a hold, the game would take 5 hours and quarterbacks would last, on average, 2 yrs.
2. Offensive Pass Interference on D. Jackson. Like Locklear's hold, refs could choose to make receivers keep "their hands to yourselves" until catching the ball. But they don't, usually.
1. Stealers first touchdown. Which wasn't a touchdown.

I thought about trying to find a 5th worst call, but these four speak for themselves. I think the refs just had a bad day. But if I were a conspiracy theorist sort, or just a die-hard Seattle fan, I would believe "the fix was on" -- last night was the shadiest refereeing job I’ve seen in years. Oh, I’m not alone in this. Not even close to alone.

Movie "reviews," part 1.

2006-01-30T19:12:00.000-06:00

I (finally) saw the movie “Munich.” I don’t want to go down certain roads, such as what vengeance does to the avenger, whether or not “blood will have blood” and there is no end to violence paid back with violence. While these are important ideas to the film, and to current society, they are not what struck me. I can, at times, be a bit contrarian. But by this age though, it’s instinct.

I went into the movie with this preconception: Israel’s assassinating the members of Black September responsible for the Munich massacre was justified, assuming that getting those responsible into a court room was logistically improbable. After watching the movie, I still have no problem with that stated proposition. I think such “hits” are extrajudicial killings, which are legally problematic, to say the least. But when confronted with such a threat they both protect innocent people from the specific terrorist individuals and at least show that such acts will come with a price (notice I did not say deter future violence).

Throughout the movie I became more and more aware that the “stated proposition” (assassinating those responsible for Munich) was never that simple. What does “responsible” mean? How much did a person have to do to qualify? Did they have to know what they were assisting a massacre of non-combatants during an event meant, among other things, to facilitate peaceful relations? How much evidence was necessary to prove a specific person merited this punishment? What happens to other individuals who get in the way?

Thus, the biggest thing I took away from the film is that “justice” is not a simple process, ever. “Justice” is messy, haphazard, goes too far, does not go far enough and can be dead wrong. It can also be dead on, on its good days. Oh wait. I was supposed to be talking about “Munich.” You see, the “justice” I just waxed something about was our formal legal system.

See where I ‘m going with this? This “justice” we so often talk about has every human frailty possible in what ever form it takes.

Thus, to make it so ubiquitous as to start dealing out the same punishment to anyone at all connected with the crime is like using a sledge hammer and machete to do open heart surgery. In the same light, having Mossad, which has more than a couple incentives to over punish, determine who is to receive these terribly final sentences turns into prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. They are only qualified to do the first and the last of that group.

In short, justice is never simple, but violence is very simple. As the two concepts are so different, substituting one for the other is a dangerous trade.

Now, Munich is “inspired” by the actual events. If there are accurate histories available to the masses, I have not read them yet. If there were 11 people who Israel accurately identified as directly planning the Munich attack, killing them is acceptable (if legally problematic). Once we get outside any of those assumptions, however, the analysis quickly disintegrates.

Fast forward. There are scholars and politicians arguing that if you have a person in custody, and this person has information about a pending terrorist attack but will not divulge it under any form of interrogation save torture (the ticking bomb hypothetical), the state in question should torture him.

Assuming all these things to be true, I can accept this. But who gets to decide when the prisoner "knows" something, when an attack is coming, what threats are credible and which threats are large enough to justify torturing a human being? Further, and how do they go about making these calls?

Top Five Sporting Events of the Weekend

2006-01-30T09:02:00.000-06:00

5. Bucks 83, Celtics 79
4. Real Madrid 2, Celta Vigo 1
3. Gophers 62, Hoosiers 41
2. Gophers 5, Badgers 4
1. Gophers 3, Badgers 1

One Final word: Sweep.

Will the real John Cornyn please stand up?

2006-01-09T09:57:00.000-06:00

This piece by Sen. Jeff Cornyn, R-Texas, which I think is off on so many levels, clearly passes the bar in terms of intellectual effort– this is at least Triple A (ok, fine. Major League) level political spin. Combined with his past statements about Terri Schiavo/violence against judges (the latter is understandable), I am left with one of three conclusions:

1. Cornyn is an idiot, but has found a great staffer to write things for him.

The problem with this is his bio lists things like Texas AG, District Court Judge and Texas Supreme Court judge. Now the Texas Supreme Court consistently has a “unique” mix of intellectuals (alums being Priscilla Owen and Al Gonzalez) to say the least, but idiots they are not.

2. Cornyn has his good days and his bad days. And his worse days, etc.

This would be the understatement of the century; so I have to go with:

3. Cornyn is like Zaphod Beeblebrox: half of his brain was removed so the people of Texas would be more likely to elect him. Usually he just operates without it; but when he has to write something smart people will read, he lets it come out and play.

Top Five Overreaching Things Said About the "Chronic—what?—cles of Narnia"

2006-01-08T21:25:00.000-06:00

1. "It's uniting my generation. We may not always agree; but this is something we can all enjoy and laugh about." (Anonymous)
2. "It transcends the type of rap Eminem and the Beastie Boys promulgated." (some blogger, in a post titled "The Chronicles of Narnia Rap - it could save hip-hop ")
3. People are forwarding this to each other because it is "it's an ode to what can be great" about rap. (Article in Slate.com)
4. "'Lazy Sunday' (actual title) also represents a defining moment for the film and television business." (Piece in Newsweek)
5. "If it doesn’t make you smile, you might be dead." (some other blogger)

OK. So here is the skit, if you haven't seen it. And no I don't think you're a dork if that's the case. It's damn funny. But so is this movie. And this one too. No one talks about them bringing about world piece or something.

I hate to be the killjoy, but let's work on a little perspective here.

Oh, if in 2 years SNL is fully back to life -- at least, say, on par with The Daily Show -- people might then (and only then) rightfully credit "Lazy Sunday" with its rebirth. Not saving rap or uniting a generation; but saving SNL, that's possible.

Why? ... Because I say so!

2006-01-03T18:29:00.000-06:00

I've been working out my thoughts on the Christmas/Holidays/Nothingness culture wars and had planned on making that my first substantive topic. But that has proven more difficult than I thought. So instead I'll pick an easier target: President Bush's approving wire-taps on U.S. citizens without legal authority.

Really, it’s almost unfair to jump on this bandwagon, but hey, who said any of this was fair. No wait. We can be fair. Bush has claimed he did have legal authority to spy on U.S. citizens. Where did he get it? Himself. Bush didn’t say this in so many words; but he did say it in these:

Bush said he wanted to assure the American people that the program "is a necessary part of my job to protect you, and (that) we're guarding your civil liberties."

He rebuffed a questioner who suggested he was assuming "unchecked power", noting congressional leaders had been briefed more than a dozen times. "To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," Bush said.

"As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country," he said.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said earlier on Monday the Congress' authorization of military force after September 11 also gave Bush the right to order the eavesdropping.

In that Reuters excerpt, the White House articulated two reasons Bush is actually not breaking the law: 1) the constitution says so, 2) the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF), the congressional act that approved military action in Afghanistan, says so.

The first argument asserts that his powers as commander-in-chief trump Congress’s power to write laws governing federal agencies. Bush neglected to mention if this power trumps all Congressional power, or if not, where that line falls.

The second argument asserts that when Congress authorized Bush to go to war in Afghanistan, it also authorized him to spy on US citizens in the US, even if the actual act doesn’t say so in any way, shape or form.

I’m being pithy. There are real questions that others are discussing far better than I could. Go read them. But before you do, I would like to point out one other thing:

If various pundits and Senators are correct, the President is so far out of line its ridiculous. That’s nice. But the President has also been terribly lazy.

If this spying was truly necessary to national security, I can file this in the “Not pretty, but unfortunately necessary” bin. But its not like the NSA had to go through some drawn out, public, legal process: they had to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the FISC.

What is the FISC? It is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, so it has that going for it.

Beyond that though … well, you see, it’s this court. But it does not look or function like a normal court. The FISC is not located in the judiciary, but instead the executive branch’s Department of Justice (run by Al “Bush for King George IV” Gonzales). Hearings before the FISC are closed to the public, ex parte (the proposed target is not there -- for obvious reasons) and non-adversarial (the proposed target has no representation). In fact, the closest brother to the FISC would be the touchy-feely Star Chamber.

Don’t get me wrong — while I have my issues with the lack of normal elements of justice in the FISC, not the least of which is that "democracy dies behind closed doors" (to quote the late Justice Brandeis), it’s probably necessary. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never has ever considered the constitutionality of the FISC, but lower courts have said it’s fine. At the end of the day, some ugly things must be done and at least we have 11 judges handpicked by the judge making sure it’s done right.

Cutting to the chase, there is also a three person Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which reviews government appeals the few times the FISC says "no."

Here’s the rub: it has met once, and it said "yes."

So all Bush and the NSA had to do was get a “yes” from a body that says “no” less than Paris Hilton (looking at the stats it seems the FISC has out right denied 5 applications -- out of over 18,000. There have been approximately 180 modifications, 2 of which that solitary Court of Review decision reversed.) One other thing: The government can seek an order or warrant retroactively. It’s like using a credit card — spy now, pay later.

Like I said: lazy.

Well either lazy or the wiretaps he’s seeking to start up are so out of line even the FISC will say no – something they did none out of 1758 times in 2004. As a hypothetical, as annoying as she can be, I don’t think even the FISC or its Court of Review would approve tapping Sen. Barbara Boxer’s phones.

Sorry, Dubya.

Cheers.

Nic
______________________________________________________

PS This is as close as I will come to commenting on the law. As limiting as that may be I am faced with the following catch-22:

If its an area of law I practice, certain economic realities (my mortgage and student loans) force me to charge for telling you about it.

On the other hand, if its area of law I do not practice, you do not want to rely on my view of it. I tried to stick to facts here, not analysis, though I think some of the latter snuck in.

Top Five Fiction Books

2006-01-03T16:47:00.000-06:00

1. The Brothers K, David James Duncan
2. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce
3. The World According to Garp, John Irving
4. The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
5. High Fidelity, Nick Hornby

VERY Honorable mention (I almost broke precedent and went with a top 10 today): Cien Años de Soledad, Gabriel García Márquez; The Unbearable Lightness of Being; Milan Kundera; Slaughterhouse-Five (or the Children’s Crusade), Kurt Vonnegut; El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.

Two Notes: #4, LOTR to those who know, should be always rated as a whole. But if you must truncate the work, the second book, The Two Towers, is the best book. Much of it was moved from the second to the third movie. The Time Traveler’s Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger is the most exiting thing I’ve read in years (since Garp in 2003). It might deserve a presence on this list, but it is too new in my head (I read it this fall).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next week I promise (1) to post the Top 5 list on time and (2) have it be something interesting, i.e., Top Five Spots to Deposit Used Gum (Excluding the Waste Basket or Under a Chair).

Top Five Edible Parts of Christmas

2005-12-27T13:44:00.001-06:00

1. Cookies (including chow mein noodle haystacks, golden graham smores and sour cream cookies.)
2. Turkey sandwiches (w/Miracle Whip)
3. Christmas Dinner Dessert *
4. Mimosas
5. Fun size candy bars in stocking

Honorable Mention: Tom & Jerry's, Holiday Beers (such as Goose Island's "Christmas Ale," Sierra Nevada's "Celebration Ale" and Jenlain's "Biere de Noel")

* Approximately 15 years ago my younger brother decided to make the dessert for Christmas dinner. He labors over the decision of what to cook and it is always fantastic. He continues to perform this task despite being with his in-laws for the meal.

Top Five Random Movie Quotes

2005-12-19T14:00:00.000-06:00

1. "PC LOAD LETTER" -- what the f*$# does that mean?
2. It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
3. … big gulps huh? All right. Well, see ya later.
4. I’d call that a big ‘yes’
5. The popcorn you’re eating has been pissed in. Film at 11.

Random means a few things. The quote can not be a memorable part of the plot nor make sense without the context. Most importantly, these are all quotes that I repeated randomly at some point in my life (usually annoying those who know me after the first few times).

As they are random, I am not including the movie the hail from. In the age of google, simply put the quote in quotes and you'll find it. Sorry I don't have a wav link for the Doc Holliday line.

Cheers.

Happy whatever it is you celebrate.

Top Five Albums No One Else Puts on Best Album Lists

2005-12-12T08:19:00.000-06:00

As I get started actually posting to this little bit of nonsense, I thought I'd start a bit of a tradition: each Monday I'll pop-off a list of 5 things that have some relation to each other.

This Monday, the list is:

...

Wait for it.

...

Top Five Albums No One Else Puts on Best Album Lists
1. Nick Cave, "The Boatman's Call"
2. Pearl Jam, "No Code"
3. Tori Amos, "Under the Pink"
4. 10,000 Maniacs, "In My Tribe"
5. The Toadies, "Rubberneck"

Honorable mention goes to Ben Folds, "The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner;" Alice in Chains, "Unplugged;" and Metallica, "Master of Puppets."

I would have included Wilco's "Summer Teeth" but their critical success, especially the reviews of "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot," seems to preclude them from a "sleeper" list.

Thanks.

Nic

P.S. I was going to make the first list
Top 5 Albums of All-time (Or At Least Since They Started Selling Albums)

But since these would have been:
1. "LA Woman," The Doors
2. "The Unforgettable Fire," U2
3. "The Bends," Radiohead
4. "Revolver," The Beatles
5. "Document," R.E.M.

I decided the sheer lack of creativity made the list lame. That and the fact that I would be telling everyone who reads this (maybe 3 people) that I am a middle class white male who is moderately (but not too) metrosexual.

The Young Dog

2005-11-30T10:55:00.000-06:00

What’s in a name?

2005-11-29T14:03:00.000-06:00

To create a blog one needs a name. I lack a last name that lends to a catchy, ambiguous and possibly significant title, nor am I writing about a new adventure, nor could I come up with a cool title out of the blue (thankfully though, this will not be a similarly slanted blog, but it will hopefully be as good).

Then I thought back to things that have influenced me, and a James Joyce book came to mind. Not that one. This one. But the protagonist and would be titular reference shares his name with a mythological character which could confuse. Also though there was an earlier incarnation of our 'hero' that is devoid of mythology, it just doesn’t work.

I then thought of just calling it “wtf,” as I often think that when reading my paper as well as favorite websites or blogs and might likely post many of those thoughts here. But that’s lame. Also, as it cannot but evoke an explicative, it doesn’t seem like good blogosphere citizenship.

I then pondered a cool pen name title, referencing a semi-obscure song, but, thankfully, I decided against it. Also relegated to the bad idea bin were stupid titles referencing well known bits of pop culture and my difficulty in picking a title.

So, I settled on this one. I am (newly) a lawyer – I welcome your jokes – and have chosen to post my young dog’s picture in the profile, instead of my own non-descript, chubby-faced mug. I just about ended up where I started. But any reference to other works is now more incidental.

Your dog is not as cute as mine.

Thanks.