"If he cracked a joke,
Then you chortled for days..."
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Just call me Pharaoh
0 comments
-x-
This sounds familiar
Milosevic has begun the defense against some 60 charges of war crimes. In his opening he expresses this oft heard sentiment: "The former Yugoslav president began his defence by denouncing the International Criminal Court as an illegal institution."
-x-
Sin, Folly, and the true Passion of Christ: Moving Beyond Shame
With the release of Passion of Christ, I feel compelled to give a very Kierkegaardian expose into a religious feeling that has been rustling around inside of me for awhile. I’m not a theologian, I’m probably not a “good” Christian, and it’s certainly not my intention for this to be something to evangelize. If you care to read you should go for it, but I’ve made necessary disclaimers that it’s heavily imbibed with Christian (although certainly not conservative Christian) beliefs.
I know that it’s been a difficult year for some of my friends; I’ve also had a heck of a year. And I can’t really say it’s been altogether spiritual for me in the former understanding of the word, but I remember vividly about 10 year ago when my friend was in a near-fatal car accident going to visit him in the hospital. I later told my mom that I really didn’t think I had been praying for him like I thought I should. She said to me that sometimes we have a prayer life and sometimes we have a life of prayer; she said, “I believe that every sigh and groan you offer is considered to be a prayer.” That has slowly formed the shell of my religious beliefs.
I think that the one thing that I really have talked to my friends about, and experienced spiritually, is how the idea of boxing spirituality into a certain set of what are considered religious tasks, is a damaging idea. I think that spirituality was always meant to be integrated with who we are as people. When I have studied traditional cultures I found that there are often spiritual activities tied to all sorts of everyday things. Like the Celts for instance had prayers or charms (depending on whether we are talking about pagan or whatnot) that would they would say when milking a cow or lighting a fire or any other activity that affected their daily life.
There is something about that which is really appealing to me. In a lot of traditional religions (not meaning Baptist) there is a sense of attachment of spiritual realities to the physical realities. Example, the rain isn’t coming so the God must be mad. There is a limit to this as it can cause a detrimental situation. If you recall the situation of Job, every evidence suggested that he should (like his wife suggested) just curse God. Job was able to have a faith which was super-circumstantial, it was above the circumstances. He was able to recognize that there was a higher reality, a spiritual reality, that was at work in a way which was not very visible.
At the same time, I think that sometimes what happens to us Christians when we divide everything up into secular and sacred, and we have our job and life personality with our church personality and our home personality is that we end up going in a bad direction. We end up associating spirit with life and flesh with death. What I mean by this is that if you follow the history of the certain religions is that you can see views that look at life deeply routed in the physical expression. Giant feasts with wine are seen in the Old Testament.
In a sort of knee jerk reaction many Christians associate the physical with sin. There is a fear of falling into sin that makes many Christians want to cut off all of these things. For example there are some who say that too drink is absolutely anti-spiritual. But there is no evidence in the Bible that this is true: Jesus didn’t accidentally perform his first miracle by turning water into wine; it wasn’t like he was backed into a corner. So it obviously must not be the great sin some people would have you believe it to be.
It does go further than that because drinking can be more of a take it or leave it thing. There is a lot of room between complete sobriety and drunkenness. Sex, for instance, is a wonderful thing. It needs to be in the right context but when it is it isn’t something to be shameful about. So many of us are taught to look at the ground when that word is mentioned or when things are discussed, or when they aren’t discussed. It’s unfortunate when kids have to learn on the playground what things are. I think that is a product of how ashamed many people, because of their beliefs that separate.
I think that often us Christians are separated from being able to live as humans, because we think that to be human is essentially to be sinful. We were created in the image of God and so there is something good and glorious about being human. There is a way in which some people approach faith that is damaging. They say that all things human and physical and of the temporal world are of the devil and all things invisible and of the spiritual world is Godly. That is actually heresy and is something that can lead Christians into serious trouble and lead into living a guilt-ridden and depressed life.
There is no hope for being authentic people if we can’t deal with the fact that we are humans. Sometimes in our faith walk, or journey, we shun the good aspects of humanity along with the bad because we are so afraid of sin. But God didn’t say that when we accept what Christ did and become saved we will leave this world and be transported to some astro-plain. He could have if that was the plan but it wasn’t. He believed in redeeming humanity because he was still happy with what he created. He believed in it so much that he became human to redeem us. From the Christian understanding of what Jesus did he was resurrected in the human form. Even now Jesus is in human form. This expression of solidarity, that approval, is so crucial in living through faith.
The reason I’m saying this is that when I’m going through the grief of life it doesn’t always help when people give me the spiritual explanation. Sometimes I think that I’ve strayed from the faith by believing that being human was wrong but God is content with me being human. Come what may in the difficulties and joys of being human.
I know that it’s been a difficult year for some of my friends; I’ve also had a heck of a year. And I can’t really say it’s been altogether spiritual for me in the former understanding of the word, but I remember vividly about 10 year ago when my friend was in a near-fatal car accident going to visit him in the hospital. I later told my mom that I really didn’t think I had been praying for him like I thought I should. She said to me that sometimes we have a prayer life and sometimes we have a life of prayer; she said, “I believe that every sigh and groan you offer is considered to be a prayer.” That has slowly formed the shell of my religious beliefs.
I think that the one thing that I really have talked to my friends about, and experienced spiritually, is how the idea of boxing spirituality into a certain set of what are considered religious tasks, is a damaging idea. I think that spirituality was always meant to be integrated with who we are as people. When I have studied traditional cultures I found that there are often spiritual activities tied to all sorts of everyday things. Like the Celts for instance had prayers or charms (depending on whether we are talking about pagan or whatnot) that would they would say when milking a cow or lighting a fire or any other activity that affected their daily life.
There is something about that which is really appealing to me. In a lot of traditional religions (not meaning Baptist) there is a sense of attachment of spiritual realities to the physical realities. Example, the rain isn’t coming so the God must be mad. There is a limit to this as it can cause a detrimental situation. If you recall the situation of Job, every evidence suggested that he should (like his wife suggested) just curse God. Job was able to have a faith which was super-circumstantial, it was above the circumstances. He was able to recognize that there was a higher reality, a spiritual reality, that was at work in a way which was not very visible.
At the same time, I think that sometimes what happens to us Christians when we divide everything up into secular and sacred, and we have our job and life personality with our church personality and our home personality is that we end up going in a bad direction. We end up associating spirit with life and flesh with death. What I mean by this is that if you follow the history of the certain religions is that you can see views that look at life deeply routed in the physical expression. Giant feasts with wine are seen in the Old Testament.
In a sort of knee jerk reaction many Christians associate the physical with sin. There is a fear of falling into sin that makes many Christians want to cut off all of these things. For example there are some who say that too drink is absolutely anti-spiritual. But there is no evidence in the Bible that this is true: Jesus didn’t accidentally perform his first miracle by turning water into wine; it wasn’t like he was backed into a corner. So it obviously must not be the great sin some people would have you believe it to be.
It does go further than that because drinking can be more of a take it or leave it thing. There is a lot of room between complete sobriety and drunkenness. Sex, for instance, is a wonderful thing. It needs to be in the right context but when it is it isn’t something to be shameful about. So many of us are taught to look at the ground when that word is mentioned or when things are discussed, or when they aren’t discussed. It’s unfortunate when kids have to learn on the playground what things are. I think that is a product of how ashamed many people, because of their beliefs that separate.
I think that often us Christians are separated from being able to live as humans, because we think that to be human is essentially to be sinful. We were created in the image of God and so there is something good and glorious about being human. There is a way in which some people approach faith that is damaging. They say that all things human and physical and of the temporal world are of the devil and all things invisible and of the spiritual world is Godly. That is actually heresy and is something that can lead Christians into serious trouble and lead into living a guilt-ridden and depressed life.
There is no hope for being authentic people if we can’t deal with the fact that we are humans. Sometimes in our faith walk, or journey, we shun the good aspects of humanity along with the bad because we are so afraid of sin. But God didn’t say that when we accept what Christ did and become saved we will leave this world and be transported to some astro-plain. He could have if that was the plan but it wasn’t. He believed in redeeming humanity because he was still happy with what he created. He believed in it so much that he became human to redeem us. From the Christian understanding of what Jesus did he was resurrected in the human form. Even now Jesus is in human form. This expression of solidarity, that approval, is so crucial in living through faith.
The reason I’m saying this is that when I’m going through the grief of life it doesn’t always help when people give me the spiritual explanation. Sometimes I think that I’ve strayed from the faith by believing that being human was wrong but God is content with me being human. Come what may in the difficulties and joys of being human.
-x-
Monday, August 30, 2004
A Wrinkle in FTC: What once was taboo in advertising is now reasonable
Anti-aging and anti-wrinkle creams, at one time, were considered illegal by the FTC. Why are magazines filled with the ads today? Was the court, in 1944 just being paternalistic to females?
Before the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed in 1914 there was little way for consumers to really be protected unless they went through the rigors of trial. Really, it wasn't until Congress amended the mandate of the FTCA from unfair methods of competition in commerce to both unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce that it really was able to protect consumers.
The FTC is an administrative body that can enforce this mandate through broad investigatory powers, adjudication within, and litigation in the court system. Therefore, if a company is engaged in some sort of deception the FTC can bring a suit against that company to force it to cease and desist.
One of the first ways this came up was in the realm of false advertising. In 1944, the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, helped to define what was necessary for deception under the FTC in the Charles of the Ritz decision. Here was a company that marketed a cosmetic product called "Rejuvenescence Cream" and made over 1 million dollars from its sales during 1935-1939. A period of time where the Great Depression was in its worst and people were jumping out of buildings. A cream was able to make over a million in sales.
The Court agreed with the cease and desist order issued by the FTC. Using the word "Rejuvenescence" was held to deceive the reasonable person because it suggested something that was medically impossible. The FTC had experts in the medical field come in to testify this was medically impossible. The court said that the reasonable person was "ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous" of society.
Look in any of the advertising magazines today and you'll see plenty of ads for anti-wrinkle creams. In More magazine (aimed primarily at older women) has a full page Neutrogena ad that says, "Get 10 years back with Retinal Correction." How is that different from Charles of the Ritz? In Vogue magazine Estee Lauder has an ad that starts, "Can you change the destiny of your skin?" It then goes on to discuss the marvels of genetics. Finally Bazaar offers that if all of this doesn't work then "is it the right time to ask your doctor about Botox?"
What has changed in the 60 years since Charles of the Ritz? Are these ads still aimed at the ignorant and credulous? Is the FTC trying to not be paternalistic to women? I'm not sure what prompted the change but the FTC now Policy Statement Regarding Advertising that supplies companies and advertising firms concrete rules for what they can and cannot advertise. Ultimately they must have a reasonable basis for making their claims. If they don't have a reasonable basis it is a per se violation of section 5 of the FTC.
My guess is that the FTC has realized that technology has changed and it is not possible to have anti-aging creams.
Before the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed in 1914 there was little way for consumers to really be protected unless they went through the rigors of trial. Really, it wasn't until Congress amended the mandate of the FTCA from unfair methods of competition in commerce to both unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce that it really was able to protect consumers.
The FTC is an administrative body that can enforce this mandate through broad investigatory powers, adjudication within, and litigation in the court system. Therefore, if a company is engaged in some sort of deception the FTC can bring a suit against that company to force it to cease and desist.
One of the first ways this came up was in the realm of false advertising. In 1944, the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, helped to define what was necessary for deception under the FTC in the Charles of the Ritz decision. Here was a company that marketed a cosmetic product called "Rejuvenescence Cream" and made over 1 million dollars from its sales during 1935-1939. A period of time where the Great Depression was in its worst and people were jumping out of buildings. A cream was able to make over a million in sales.
The Court agreed with the cease and desist order issued by the FTC. Using the word "Rejuvenescence" was held to deceive the reasonable person because it suggested something that was medically impossible. The FTC had experts in the medical field come in to testify this was medically impossible. The court said that the reasonable person was "ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous" of society.
Look in any of the advertising magazines today and you'll see plenty of ads for anti-wrinkle creams. In More magazine (aimed primarily at older women) has a full page Neutrogena ad that says, "Get 10 years back with Retinal Correction." How is that different from Charles of the Ritz? In Vogue magazine Estee Lauder has an ad that starts, "Can you change the destiny of your skin?" It then goes on to discuss the marvels of genetics. Finally Bazaar offers that if all of this doesn't work then "is it the right time to ask your doctor about Botox?"
What has changed in the 60 years since Charles of the Ritz? Are these ads still aimed at the ignorant and credulous? Is the FTC trying to not be paternalistic to women? I'm not sure what prompted the change but the FTC now Policy Statement Regarding Advertising that supplies companies and advertising firms concrete rules for what they can and cannot advertise. Ultimately they must have a reasonable basis for making their claims. If they don't have a reasonable basis it is a per se violation of section 5 of the FTC.
My guess is that the FTC has realized that technology has changed and it is not possible to have anti-aging creams.
-x-
Sunday, August 29, 2004
The Ethicist gives a short shrift to actors
In the NY Times Magazine, Randy Cohen answers an actresses question (Registration req'd) concerning whether she is due a role in a production she helped to create.
She specifically states this: "I worked with the playwright, brought in a director and played the lead in every backer's reading. Both the director and the writer assured me that I was ''attached'' to any full production." She was not given any part at all and wonders whether she was due their promise.
Cohen's reply seems to rest on the fact that he doesn't believe this is the full story. He protects his actual answer by stating that "Like many collaborators, those working on a play often exaggerate their own contributions and minimize that of their colleagues"
This, I've learned the difficult way, is the norm in the theater world. People want a bigger role than they actually have which often makes them exaggerate their contribution. Aside from my ego, this is the reason I won't write collaboratively when I'm writing plays. The last time I did the guy ended up taking all of the credit for the play, and I foolishly didn't have enough documentation to really prove my involvement.
Ultimately Cohen gives his utopian answer, "Your having contributed ideas does not in itself entitle you to a role in the play. That's what actors routinely do; that's what the development process is meant to encourage." Cohen falters with his belief that Equity is going to be of any protection to the majority of actors:
Nice in theory but this doesn't work out in most situations. With the play that is going up in the Fall the theater company has only one member who is Equity. The show is a non-Equity show. Most actors are not in Equity, less than 25% of the actors in America are Equity actors. At one point I had the opportunity to work towards some Equity credit, but I declined as I have no intention of acting or stage managing. I am protected by the Dramatist's Guild where I'm an active member. Most of the actors who I work with, however, are without a union.
The reason is that Equity is extremely difficult to get into. Many auditions are Equity only auditions. This leads to situations amazingly similar to this actress who wrote The Ethicist. If she is exaggerating than the writer and director have no obligation to allow her in the show. However, I've seen situations just like what she says where an actor or actress helps a lot with the development only to be cast away. Of course, since she is not Equity (more than likely) she won't have anyone out there to protect her interests.
She specifically states this: "I worked with the playwright, brought in a director and played the lead in every backer's reading. Both the director and the writer assured me that I was ''attached'' to any full production." She was not given any part at all and wonders whether she was due their promise.
Cohen's reply seems to rest on the fact that he doesn't believe this is the full story. He protects his actual answer by stating that "Like many collaborators, those working on a play often exaggerate their own contributions and minimize that of their colleagues"
This, I've learned the difficult way, is the norm in the theater world. People want a bigger role than they actually have which often makes them exaggerate their contribution. Aside from my ego, this is the reason I won't write collaboratively when I'm writing plays. The last time I did the guy ended up taking all of the credit for the play, and I foolishly didn't have enough documentation to really prove my involvement.
Ultimately Cohen gives his utopian answer, "Your having contributed ideas does not in itself entitle you to a role in the play. That's what actors routinely do; that's what the development process is meant to encourage." Cohen falters with his belief that Equity is going to be of any protection to the majority of actors:
Still, all who contribute to a venture should share in its success. The actress Alison Fraser, who starred on Broadway in ''The Secret Garden,'' told me one way this happens: ''This is what Equity workshop contracts are all about. You work for a basic, low rate, but if the show goes into production, you have a guarantee of either the role or three weeks' salary. Plus a tiny percentage of subsequent productions.''
Nice in theory but this doesn't work out in most situations. With the play that is going up in the Fall the theater company has only one member who is Equity. The show is a non-Equity show. Most actors are not in Equity, less than 25% of the actors in America are Equity actors. At one point I had the opportunity to work towards some Equity credit, but I declined as I have no intention of acting or stage managing. I am protected by the Dramatist's Guild where I'm an active member. Most of the actors who I work with, however, are without a union.
The reason is that Equity is extremely difficult to get into. Many auditions are Equity only auditions. This leads to situations amazingly similar to this actress who wrote The Ethicist. If she is exaggerating than the writer and director have no obligation to allow her in the show. However, I've seen situations just like what she says where an actor or actress helps a lot with the development only to be cast away. Of course, since she is not Equity (more than likely) she won't have anyone out there to protect her interests.
-x-
What I'm listening to and reading and watching
With music I've really been digging the following:
Dropkick Murphys - Tessie (for the longest time I didn't like Dropkick Murphys because they always seemed to gimicky. This is actually a good song though. A nice mix of piano, bagpipe, and fun lyrics.)
The Postal Service (Anything by this group is pretty good. Again, when they first came out I didn't really think much of them, but their music is growing on me. It's pleasant to listen to.)
Pink Floyd - The Final Cut (Animals has been my favorite Pink Floyd album since I started to like them. The Final Cut is growing on me more and more as the years go by. Roger Waters = genius).
My obsessions as far as books:
E.M. Forster - A Passage to India (He's my favorite author hands down. I'm about to re-read one of my least favorites - Howard's End. His sentences are beautiful.)
Charles Wheelan - Naked Economics (I know nothing about economics and want someone to teach me. What more is there to say?)
Currently my favorite play:
Don DeLillo - Valparaiso (Much better than I thought it would be. It won't stay my favorite for long, but for a couple weeks it will hang out. Characters saying things like this, "Livia. This primate fetus you're schlepping around under your belly button. Was it conceived in the traditional sort of in-your-face manner?" Livia: "Yes, it was.")
Currently my favorite movie:
The Big Lebowski ("Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!")
Dropkick Murphys - Tessie (for the longest time I didn't like Dropkick Murphys because they always seemed to gimicky. This is actually a good song though. A nice mix of piano, bagpipe, and fun lyrics.)
The Postal Service (Anything by this group is pretty good. Again, when they first came out I didn't really think much of them, but their music is growing on me. It's pleasant to listen to.)
Pink Floyd - The Final Cut (Animals has been my favorite Pink Floyd album since I started to like them. The Final Cut is growing on me more and more as the years go by. Roger Waters = genius).
My obsessions as far as books:
E.M. Forster - A Passage to India (He's my favorite author hands down. I'm about to re-read one of my least favorites - Howard's End. His sentences are beautiful.)
Charles Wheelan - Naked Economics (I know nothing about economics and want someone to teach me. What more is there to say?)
Currently my favorite play:
Don DeLillo - Valparaiso (Much better than I thought it would be. It won't stay my favorite for long, but for a couple weeks it will hang out. Characters saying things like this, "Livia. This primate fetus you're schlepping around under your belly button. Was it conceived in the traditional sort of in-your-face manner?" Livia: "Yes, it was.")
Currently my favorite movie:
The Big Lebowski ("Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!")
-x-
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Religion and Evolution: Two Views
Compare and contrast:
This quote
Creation Science website
With...
Pope John Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
This quote
The "geologic column" which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible....There is no reason not to believe that God created the Universe, Earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis."
Creation Science website
With...
Today...fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently, is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
Pope John Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
-x-
Friday, August 27, 2004
Confusion and the Garden State
Yesterday I went to see Garden State with a girl who I stopped dating a few months ago. While it was certainly a good movie it might not have been the best choice for two people who used to have budding feelings for each other. Somehow it didn't connect to me that there was also a little love story in the film.
Don't worry, that shouldn't be a spoiler. It is readily apparent from both the print ads and TV spots, but in typical Curtis fashion I wasn't paying any attention to that. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't what I got. It is a good movie that is very well-written. I think that the editing of the film was a little rough, but I still enjoyed it overall.
Despite any superfluous feelings I might have experienced, the movie itself is quite touching. I only laughed aloud a couple times, but I did feel a lot of sorrow and also joy for the characters. Zach does a great job in developing characters that are believable and interesting. I found myself feeling sad during parts of the film where Zach didn't try to push the sadness. There are definitely scenes where he tries to force you into feeling for the characters, which I don't think work as well as scenes. However, when it is just natural Zach does a good job with letting the script and acting bring out the emotions of the characters in a non-abrasive way.
I would offer examples to illustrate, however, I would feel bad about revealing even the smaller surprises. This really is a movie that you ought to experience first hand. My problem was that I expected a brilliant film because of all the hype and it was not able to live up to my imagination. That said, it's a good film, it's enjoyable, you might find some good music, and hopefully leave feeling like you've been able to glimpse into a world where you wouldn't mind living. At least that is what the movie did for me.
Don't worry, that shouldn't be a spoiler. It is readily apparent from both the print ads and TV spots, but in typical Curtis fashion I wasn't paying any attention to that. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't what I got. It is a good movie that is very well-written. I think that the editing of the film was a little rough, but I still enjoyed it overall.
Despite any superfluous feelings I might have experienced, the movie itself is quite touching. I only laughed aloud a couple times, but I did feel a lot of sorrow and also joy for the characters. Zach does a great job in developing characters that are believable and interesting. I found myself feeling sad during parts of the film where Zach didn't try to push the sadness. There are definitely scenes where he tries to force you into feeling for the characters, which I don't think work as well as scenes. However, when it is just natural Zach does a good job with letting the script and acting bring out the emotions of the characters in a non-abrasive way.
I would offer examples to illustrate, however, I would feel bad about revealing even the smaller surprises. This really is a movie that you ought to experience first hand. My problem was that I expected a brilliant film because of all the hype and it was not able to live up to my imagination. That said, it's a good film, it's enjoyable, you might find some good music, and hopefully leave feeling like you've been able to glimpse into a world where you wouldn't mind living. At least that is what the movie did for me.
-x-
Singing Loudly Friday Picture
More Cate? Vote Kerry.
Cate Edwards and her mother soon to embrace.
Cate Edwards and her mother soon to embrace.
-x-
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Is your writing hobby or profit motivated? The Tax Court investigates
The Tax Court has issued an opinion (Acrobat Reader req'd) that should speak to the heart of most artists who have dreams of making it but are currently working another job to get by while engaged in pursuing their dreams.
On July 20, 2004, the United States Tax Court filed an opinion for the case, Calarco v. Commissioner. The opinion is impressive in that it clearly creatively explains the law demonstrating that opinions can be entertaining and informative. Before the "Prologue" the opinion begins with an apt quote from Henry VIII, "Taxation! Wherein? And what taxation?"
The Prologue section shows how "tax law has been a fount of literature for 5,000 years." In it the Judge is able to discuss such a wide range of literature from Gilgamesh (which everyone ought to read, today) to Gulliver's Travels to A Tale of Two Cities. All of which point out possible changes to tax policy. The Judge then shows his appreciation for fun, witty, and one of my favorite musicals: Urinetown (to pee you have to pay the proper fee). Many authors are cited as working as tax collectors (Chaucer, Thomas Paine, and Nathaniel Hawthorne). The history of tax law and creative forces is saluted by this opinion.
I believe that the court correctly decided the issue of whether this taxpayer was engaged in playwrighting for profit. However, I think that part of the analysis was unfair to writers. The taxpayer in this case was a phD professor at Wayne State University. He taught in the theater department while writing plays in hopes of making it. It is a costly pursuit that can only have a deduction if it is considered a trade or business.
Using tax code regulations the court was able to weigh factors in determining if the claim of profit motive was merely a pretext. In my opinion the court gets most of the analysis of the factors correct. However, the eighth factor seems to be too quickly dismissed.
Does the Judge treat the "may" like a "shall"? Some playwrights work a job to make ends meet while they wait for their dream of being performed and profit making to come true. Writing, in this case, could still be considered to have a profit motive despite the fact that their day job provides "substantial income."
That is my only issue with the analysis of the first issue. The second and third issue are more involved in substantive (and complex) tax law. I encourage everyone to read the prologue, analysis of the first issue, and epilogue of the opinion. You'll see an interesting discussion concerning what differentiates (for tax law purposes) writing as hobby and writing in hopes of profit. More importantly you'll see that court opinions do not have to be inaccessible and uncreative. Rather, they can be quite entertaining.
On July 20, 2004, the United States Tax Court filed an opinion for the case, Calarco v. Commissioner. The opinion is impressive in that it clearly creatively explains the law demonstrating that opinions can be entertaining and informative. Before the "Prologue" the opinion begins with an apt quote from Henry VIII, "Taxation! Wherein? And what taxation?"
The Prologue section shows how "tax law has been a fount of literature for 5,000 years." In it the Judge is able to discuss such a wide range of literature from Gilgamesh (which everyone ought to read, today) to Gulliver's Travels to A Tale of Two Cities. All of which point out possible changes to tax policy. The Judge then shows his appreciation for fun, witty, and one of my favorite musicals: Urinetown (to pee you have to pay the proper fee). Many authors are cited as working as tax collectors (Chaucer, Thomas Paine, and Nathaniel Hawthorne). The history of tax law and creative forces is saluted by this opinion.
I believe that the court correctly decided the issue of whether this taxpayer was engaged in playwrighting for profit. However, I think that part of the analysis was unfair to writers. The taxpayer in this case was a phD professor at Wayne State University. He taught in the theater department while writing plays in hopes of making it. It is a costly pursuit that can only have a deduction if it is considered a trade or business.
Using tax code regulations the court was able to weigh factors in determining if the claim of profit motive was merely a pretext. In my opinion the court gets most of the analysis of the factors correct. However, the eighth factor seems to be too quickly dismissed.
The eighth factor is the financial status of the taxpayer. The regulations provide that an absence of substantial income to the taxpayer from other sources may indicate a profit motive, while the presence of other substantial income may indicate a lack of profit motive. This is particularly true if the activity has personal or recreational elements. This factor does weigh against petitioner, as his primary income is from his teaching position, and allowing his playwrighting deductions would largely offset his teaching wages.
Does the Judge treat the "may" like a "shall"? Some playwrights work a job to make ends meet while they wait for their dream of being performed and profit making to come true. Writing, in this case, could still be considered to have a profit motive despite the fact that their day job provides "substantial income."
That is my only issue with the analysis of the first issue. The second and third issue are more involved in substantive (and complex) tax law. I encourage everyone to read the prologue, analysis of the first issue, and epilogue of the opinion. You'll see an interesting discussion concerning what differentiates (for tax law purposes) writing as hobby and writing in hopes of profit. More importantly you'll see that court opinions do not have to be inaccessible and uncreative. Rather, they can be quite entertaining.
-x-
Upcoming Post on Plays and Theater
Will Baude alerts me to a tax court opinion, that in structure alone seems quite enchanting. Any opinion that is structured like a play and has an epilogue is my kind of opinion. Unfortunately I've been swamped with work, but I'll read it tonight and my impression of both the form and substance. Roughly the question is whether a claimed professional playwright is a playwright for tax purposes. Fascinating.
-x-
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
JK Rowlings the 9th Circuit and Invisible Jurisprudence
Today I was reading a criminal procedure case that mentioned the "Invisibility Cloak" from the Harry Potter novels. I took note that it was a 9th Circuit case and decided to do a little research on the use of Harry Potter metaphors in the 9th Circuit jurisprudence.
There was a little more than I expected:
US v. Bonas (2003): After the recess, the Assistant United States Attorney advised the district court that it could dismiss simply by "uttering the magic words, that the court finds that manifest necessity exists." But this is not a Harry Potter novel; there is no charm for making a defendant's constitutional rights disappear. By bypassing the opportunity to urge the district court to make a record supporting its finding of manifest necessity, the government forfeited the right to try the defendant again.
US v. Birdsbill (2003): The Ready court concludes that "Dr. Abel's . . . failure to reveal . . . [the formula underlying the AASI test] means that the formula has not been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny." Another court has come to the same conclusion and compared Dr. Abel's formula to the "magic of young Harry Potter's mixing potions at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." In the Interest of CDK, JLK, and BJK, 64 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Tex. Ct. Appeals Jan. 3, 2002). This Court is not equipped to interpret or test Dr. Abel's formula, and because Dr. Abel has not released his formula for testing by other scientists, it remains merely an untested and unproven theory.
[Editor's comment: I realize that they did not come up with this metaphor in the 9th Circuit, but they do use the metaphor and apply it correctly. That is close enough]
US v. Gonzalez (2003): Gonzalez would have us adopt a theory of the Fourth Amendment akin to J.K. Rowling's Invisibility Cloak, to create at will a shield impenetrable to law enforcement view even in the most public places.
Does the frequent use of Rawlings by the 9th Circuit say something about the quality of Rawlings or illustrate the demise of legal writing on the 9th Circuit? I would say the former.
There was a little more than I expected:
US v. Bonas (2003): After the recess, the Assistant United States Attorney advised the district court that it could dismiss simply by "uttering the magic words, that the court finds that manifest necessity exists." But this is not a Harry Potter novel; there is no charm for making a defendant's constitutional rights disappear. By bypassing the opportunity to urge the district court to make a record supporting its finding of manifest necessity, the government forfeited the right to try the defendant again.
US v. Birdsbill (2003): The Ready court concludes that "Dr. Abel's . . . failure to reveal . . . [the formula underlying the AASI test] means that the formula has not been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny." Another court has come to the same conclusion and compared Dr. Abel's formula to the "magic of young Harry Potter's mixing potions at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." In the Interest of CDK, JLK, and BJK, 64 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Tex. Ct. Appeals Jan. 3, 2002). This Court is not equipped to interpret or test Dr. Abel's formula, and because Dr. Abel has not released his formula for testing by other scientists, it remains merely an untested and unproven theory.
[Editor's comment: I realize that they did not come up with this metaphor in the 9th Circuit, but they do use the metaphor and apply it correctly. That is close enough]
US v. Gonzalez (2003): Gonzalez would have us adopt a theory of the Fourth Amendment akin to J.K. Rowling's Invisibility Cloak, to create at will a shield impenetrable to law enforcement view even in the most public places.
Does the frequent use of Rawlings by the 9th Circuit say something about the quality of Rawlings or illustrate the demise of legal writing on the 9th Circuit? I would say the former.
-x-
My Guitar Weeps under my Rhyme
Most people know little of the Curtis skill of playing the guitar and singing. I tell most people that I can just play a few basic chords, because I'm not comfortable playing around most people. The truth is that I can play quite well from a few lessons in classical guitar when I was 14-16 to a lot of playing along with the radio. I've learned to hear a song and be able to figure it out and play.
There have been a few times that I've put this skill to use. In my experience, being able to play the guitar and sing (albeit only decently) is quite the asset. Last Spring I was dating Mandy for about three months. It was probably around month two that I gained the confidence and desire to play a song for her. I chose to sing her California Stars.
I'm not sure what it is about that song but it scored major points. I love the lyrics and enjoy playing the song too. It isn't too difficult to play, so I'm able to be a little goofy and act overly emotional during it.
Then there has been one other girlfriend that I've played a song for on a couple occassions. What I'm thinking of is when I played a song for Heidi that I wrote. Somehow it was enough to bring her to tears. At one point I had the lyrics and chords written down, but I've since misplaced them. I remember the chorus:
I wasn't really happy with the lyrics that I wrote for her, but she loved it. There have only been a couple times a girl has cried tears of happiness due to me, and that was one of them.
Tonight, after reading some constitutional criminal procedure I grabbed my guitar and started to play a few songs. I called my friend in New Mexico and played her a newer song by Fountains of Wayne which made her laugh. I just need to get a little more comfortable with playing for people, because it does seem to bring happiness if you have even a minor amount of talent.
There have been a few times that I've put this skill to use. In my experience, being able to play the guitar and sing (albeit only decently) is quite the asset. Last Spring I was dating Mandy for about three months. It was probably around month two that I gained the confidence and desire to play a song for her. I chose to sing her California Stars.
I'm not sure what it is about that song but it scored major points. I love the lyrics and enjoy playing the song too. It isn't too difficult to play, so I'm able to be a little goofy and act overly emotional during it.
Then there has been one other girlfriend that I've played a song for on a couple occassions. What I'm thinking of is when I played a song for Heidi that I wrote. Somehow it was enough to bring her to tears. At one point I had the lyrics and chords written down, but I've since misplaced them. I remember the chorus:
Some days I actually forget
That this is really something
One smile from you and that is it
This is really something
Being hard is hard so sick of it
This is really something good
This is really something good now
I wasn't really happy with the lyrics that I wrote for her, but she loved it. There have only been a couple times a girl has cried tears of happiness due to me, and that was one of them.
Tonight, after reading some constitutional criminal procedure I grabbed my guitar and started to play a few songs. I called my friend in New Mexico and played her a newer song by Fountains of Wayne which made her laugh. I just need to get a little more comfortable with playing for people, because it does seem to bring happiness if you have even a minor amount of talent.
-x-
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Days like this keep me warm...
...and love like this means more.
They play with skill, talent, and poise and they win with dignity and respect. Congrats on a well-deserved gold.
They play with skill, talent, and poise and they win with dignity and respect. Congrats on a well-deserved gold.
-x-
The Quiet Town of Rumpus: Episode #6 - The Meeting with Roue
[I've finally had time to write some more of this short story. If you want to follow from the beginning Epiode 5 is available here]
When Sheriff Mundle questioned used car salesman Rembrandt Roué about his whereabouts at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 12 (the coroner's estimated time of DiDi Stuart's murder) Roué thought about it for a minute and then said, "The twelfth ... let's see, that was last Thursday ... Well, sure. I was with my lady friend Suzie. Suzie Digits. Every Thursday she and I eat over at Madge's."
"By Madge's," the Sheriff asked to clarify, "you mean the Rumpus Supper Club?"
"Yes, every Thursday we eat at the Rumpus Supper Club."
"You rea-lize, Rembrandt, that since you're the last person seen wi' the late Ms. Stuart that you're our number one suspect fer the murder?"
"DiDi Stuart was murdered?" Roué asked disbelievingly.
"Roué, don't play foolish cat 'n' mouse games wi' me. You know as well as I that TV reporter DiDi Stuart was murdered near Lock Lake over there on the Ole Walsh Place. A crafty sumbitch like yerself is gonna' know all 'bout sumpin' like that if only to find out how you could profit from it."
Rembrandt Roué's superficially amicable disposition didn't change at the Sheriff's malignment of him; Roué didn't respond to him at all. The sheriff thought that Roué either had the best poker face he had ever seen (aside from Jack the Spoon's) or he truly was cold-hearted enough not to be affected by anyone insulting him to his face.
"Would you like to tell me what you and Ms. Stuart were talking about?"
"Hmmm ... that was on Thursday, as well. I was driving past the old abandoned toaster factory to pick up Suzie in one of our recently acquired sports utility vehicles when I happened upon a woman (in a lavender polka-dotted, eggshell blue miniskirt) who was fooling around with the engine of her beautiful, brand new cherry red Ferrari. I remember thinking to myself, "Well, that isn't something one sees too often in Rumpus."
"Witnessing a lady in evident distress, I decided to stop and help the fair maiden. I asked her, 'May I help you, Miss?' 'Yeah,' she said, 'take me someplace I can grab a bite to eat, someplace that won't make me vomit.' So I turned the car around and dropped her off at Madge's (the Rumpus Supper Club) before going back to pick up Suzie. Sheriff, I am not a man bothered by much, but that DiDi Stuart has ... I mean, she had a mouth on her that would have embarrassed a sailor, and a woman as pretty as her. Shameful."
"Okay, your holiness, let's go check out yer story wi' Miss Digits."
As Sheriff Mundle and Rembrandt Roué left the dealership conference room where they had been speaking, the Sheriff walked up behind an unusually pensive Reggie Crome-"agnon," star quarterback of the Glenedin County Red Dragons football team and Roué's assistant, and asked him whether the Dragons would win the state championship that year (even though the Sheriff knew that the team probably wouldn't win since the Dragons hadn't had one winning season in the past 17 years and for a "star quarterback" Reggie wasn't particularly exceptional, nor was he particularly bright, nor much of a leader for that matter; Reggie was a really good team player and that was about it; a good quarterback needs to be a bold and intelligent leader and someone his teammates can trust unconditionally, like Donnovan Check Worthy Grey was back in 1980, the last great season in Glenedin County High School's golden years).
The Sheriff and Roué pulled out of Brawn's New and Used Cars, the dealership run by Rembrandt Roué for Erik Derrik Brawn Sr., in the Sheriff's truck, and they drove to Don's Construction and Moving Company so that the sheriff could question Suzie Digits.
Like most everything else in Rumpus, Don's Construction and Moving Company was owned by Erik Derik Brawn Sr., but Emanuel Nackyball operated Don's, (not that he ever had any moving or construction business so he ran a garbage collection service on the side)
When Sheriff Mundle questioned used car salesman Rembrandt Roué about his whereabouts at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 12 (the coroner's estimated time of DiDi Stuart's murder) Roué thought about it for a minute and then said, "The twelfth ... let's see, that was last Thursday ... Well, sure. I was with my lady friend Suzie. Suzie Digits. Every Thursday she and I eat over at Madge's."
"By Madge's," the Sheriff asked to clarify, "you mean the Rumpus Supper Club?"
"Yes, every Thursday we eat at the Rumpus Supper Club."
"You rea-lize, Rembrandt, that since you're the last person seen wi' the late Ms. Stuart that you're our number one suspect fer the murder?"
"DiDi Stuart was murdered?" Roué asked disbelievingly.
"Roué, don't play foolish cat 'n' mouse games wi' me. You know as well as I that TV reporter DiDi Stuart was murdered near Lock Lake over there on the Ole Walsh Place. A crafty sumbitch like yerself is gonna' know all 'bout sumpin' like that if only to find out how you could profit from it."
Rembrandt Roué's superficially amicable disposition didn't change at the Sheriff's malignment of him; Roué didn't respond to him at all. The sheriff thought that Roué either had the best poker face he had ever seen (aside from Jack the Spoon's) or he truly was cold-hearted enough not to be affected by anyone insulting him to his face.
"Would you like to tell me what you and Ms. Stuart were talking about?"
"Hmmm ... that was on Thursday, as well. I was driving past the old abandoned toaster factory to pick up Suzie in one of our recently acquired sports utility vehicles when I happened upon a woman (in a lavender polka-dotted, eggshell blue miniskirt) who was fooling around with the engine of her beautiful, brand new cherry red Ferrari. I remember thinking to myself, "Well, that isn't something one sees too often in Rumpus."
"Witnessing a lady in evident distress, I decided to stop and help the fair maiden. I asked her, 'May I help you, Miss?' 'Yeah,' she said, 'take me someplace I can grab a bite to eat, someplace that won't make me vomit.' So I turned the car around and dropped her off at Madge's (the Rumpus Supper Club) before going back to pick up Suzie. Sheriff, I am not a man bothered by much, but that DiDi Stuart has ... I mean, she had a mouth on her that would have embarrassed a sailor, and a woman as pretty as her. Shameful."
"Okay, your holiness, let's go check out yer story wi' Miss Digits."
As Sheriff Mundle and Rembrandt Roué left the dealership conference room where they had been speaking, the Sheriff walked up behind an unusually pensive Reggie Crome-"agnon," star quarterback of the Glenedin County Red Dragons football team and Roué's assistant, and asked him whether the Dragons would win the state championship that year (even though the Sheriff knew that the team probably wouldn't win since the Dragons hadn't had one winning season in the past 17 years and for a "star quarterback" Reggie wasn't particularly exceptional, nor was he particularly bright, nor much of a leader for that matter; Reggie was a really good team player and that was about it; a good quarterback needs to be a bold and intelligent leader and someone his teammates can trust unconditionally, like Donnovan Check Worthy Grey was back in 1980, the last great season in Glenedin County High School's golden years).
The Sheriff and Roué pulled out of Brawn's New and Used Cars, the dealership run by Rembrandt Roué for Erik Derrik Brawn Sr., in the Sheriff's truck, and they drove to Don's Construction and Moving Company so that the sheriff could question Suzie Digits.
Like most everything else in Rumpus, Don's Construction and Moving Company was owned by Erik Derik Brawn Sr., but Emanuel Nackyball operated Don's, (not that he ever had any moving or construction business so he ran a garbage collection service on the side)
-x-
The Singing Loudly 10, 5, and 2
This is the insomniac edition.
The ten most recent songs to play on my iTunes:
Five great modern rock music lyricists:
Two recent news stories that made me smile with different underlying emotions:
The ten most recent songs to play on my iTunes:
- Belle and Sebastian - Seymour Stein
- Duncan Sheik - November
- Low - Kind of Girl
- Starflyer 59 - I Need Some Help
- Counting Crows - Anna Begins
- Semisonic - Completely Pleased
- REM - You
- Ben Lee - Cigarettes Will Kill You
- Annie - Shoot First, Leap Second
- Jump Little Children - Forget My Loss
Five great modern rock music lyricists:
- Bob Dylan
- Tom Waits
- Frank Black (The Pixies)
- They Might Be Giants
- Aimee Mann
Two recent news stories that made me smile with different underlying emotions:
- Bush praises Kerry's military record and calls for a halt to the negative ads. Here.
- Peace talks aimed at ending ethnic violence in Sudan's troubled Darfur region are resuming in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. At least they're talking.
-x-
Monday, August 23, 2004
What about Professionalism?
For Professional Responsibility we were asked to ponder six questions to discuss in the first class.
1. Is the practice of law a "Learned Profession," or is The Law just another business?
2. If it is a learned profession what distinguishes lawyers from other professionals like CPA's, architects, clergy, engineers, chemists, physicians, if lawyer are (or should be) distinguishable?
3. Does permitting lawyers to advertise undercut the Legal Profession's claim to be a learned profession? Would you vote to ban lawyer advertising if given the chance?
4. How can we tell when certain conduct is "unprofessional"? Should we allow law firms to "go public"? Allow non-lawyers to be full partners in law firms?
5. Is it legitimate/justifiable for the legal profession to adopt rules that primarily protect its "public image" as opposed to protecting the public? If so, why?
6. Is Rule 6.1 for the benefit of the public or the profession?
Any thoughts?
1. Is the practice of law a "Learned Profession," or is The Law just another business?
Lawyers are called to act with professional conduct. The practice of the law has long been governed by various rules that the states determine and enforce with the help of model rules. I don't believe it is just another business, if for no other reason, than it is a skilled art.
As Roscoe Pound stated there are four key elements of the profession: (1) a substantial intellectual training and the use of complex judgments; (2) clients must trust those they consult as they can't evaluate the quality of the lawyer's work; (3) self-interest of the lawyer is sublimated to the client's interest and the public good; and (4) it is self-regulating.
Now, I think that clients can, and often do, evaluate the quality of the lawyers work and I think that the lawyers sublimation is greatly exaggerated. Other than that I agree.
2. If it is a learned profession what distinguishes lawyers from other professionals like CPA's, architects, clergy, engineers, chemists, physicians, if lawyer are (or should be) distinguishable?
The easy answer is that all of these professions are distinguishable because they do different things. What is unique about the lawyer (and probably the physician) is that everyone will come into contact with the law at some point in their life. Be it a will, an arrest, a divorce or marriage, or maybe a more complex litigation.
I'm actually finding it difficult to distinguish the profession of a lawyer and physician. At least in terms of how they relate to the public at large. The others seem to be much easier to differentiate.
3. Does permitting lawyers to advertise undercut the Legal Profession's claim to be a learned profession? Would you vote to ban lawyer advertising if given the chance?
No and absolutely not. In 1977, Justice Blackmun wrote the majority in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (433 US 350) where he held that the 1st Amendment protects truthful lawyer advertising. He states, "we find the postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of true professionalism to be severely strained."
Advertising itself has become an art in America. There is nothing wrong with advertising if for no other reason than it's a large mode of conversation with the average person. People listen to the radio, watch TV, and read magazines. Truthful advertising isn't a bane to the image of lawyers. Rather it humanizes us and makes us more accessible to more people.
I've noticed that the Elite Law Firms don't have conventional advertisements. What they do is sponsor events which is supposedly classier than advertising. If you go to a nice theater or opera you'll see a page devoted to Weil, Gotshal & Manges for their faithful support. For some reason that is considered more professional than the personal injury attorney who has an ad on during the Jerry Springer Show. To me it is simply targeting your clients.
Law to me is supposed to be about helping your client and not about keeping an image. Who cares if the elite look down on TV advertisements if we're able to reach out to more people?
4. How can we tell when certain conduct is "unprofessional"? Should we allow law firms to "go public"? Allow non-lawyers to be full partners in law firms?
We can tell based on the state rules that apply to the lawyer. For some reason I'm not comfortable with the idea of law firms going public. I know they are business making ventures, but I'm not sure that investors would always have the same interests as clients. The firm is supposed to be looking out for the interests of the clients and not an outside investor. I would be more alright with non-lawyers being full partners in law firms as long as they are bound by the same ethical duties as the lawyers.
5. Is it legitimate/justifiable for the legal profession to adopt rules that primarily protect its "public image" as opposed to protecting the public? If so, why?
As long as the rule isn't hurting the public or unfairly restricting constitutional rights of those in the bar then I see no problem with adopting rules that protect the "public image" of lawyers. Although, I think the term "public image" shows that lawyers often think they are more important to the public than they might be in reality.
6. Is Rule 6.1 for the benefit of the public or the profession?
This rule is one that encourages, but does not require, lawyers to do pro bono work. It states, "a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial support to organizations that provide legal services to person of limited means."
I actually think that the rule is one that is meant as more of a benefit to the public. However, like all volunteer work, I think that it probably ends up worth a benefit to both the public and the profession. It helps the lawyer become a more rounded person, it is a good experience, and it teaches you things about aspects of the law you might not normally experience.
Then it is able to give back to our community and help those around who often need assistance.
Any thoughts?
-x-
Classes Classes all Liberal Classes
I've ironed out my schedule for this semester, and I'm a little surprised how left-leaning my load is this time.
Consumer Law: obviously a class that is oriented towards helping the underdog against the corporate machine. At least, if we're going to use cliches and vague descriptors to describe the law. It isn't the other side of the coin: creditor's rights.
Criminal Clinic Chief: This is simply helping the new clinic students win criminal trials against the DA's. At least by most impressions (although I disagree) this is a liberal thing to do.
Constitutional Criminal Procedure: I'm not really sure if this is left-leaning or not. I think it's actually ambigious and depends on the professor's sylibus.
Death Penalty Project: A writing class that has a guest speakers so that we are able to follow a death penalty case. Not difficult to find here in Texas. Of course, it is going to be slanted towards the problems with the death penalty, which I'm fine with.
Professional Responsibility: No comment.
Consumer Law: obviously a class that is oriented towards helping the underdog against the corporate machine. At least, if we're going to use cliches and vague descriptors to describe the law. It isn't the other side of the coin: creditor's rights.
Criminal Clinic Chief: This is simply helping the new clinic students win criminal trials against the DA's. At least by most impressions (although I disagree) this is a liberal thing to do.
Constitutional Criminal Procedure: I'm not really sure if this is left-leaning or not. I think it's actually ambigious and depends on the professor's sylibus.
Death Penalty Project: A writing class that has a guest speakers so that we are able to follow a death penalty case. Not difficult to find here in Texas. Of course, it is going to be slanted towards the problems with the death penalty, which I'm fine with.
Professional Responsibility: No comment.
-x-
Skipping School so Soon?
I read that there will be an expected 250,000 protesters in NYC for the RNC. Talk Left pondered where all of these people will be lodged? Personally I've got about 3 friends there who would love to lend a couch to a protester they know.
I suppose that if I could find a good flight I would go out there to protest a little. More than likely the local jail would turn into my host.
As many as 250,000 demonstrators are expected to march through Manhattan next Sunday, the eve of the four-day Republican National Convention, to protest the president's polices, according to protest organizers.
"People from around the world will descend on New York to give voice to those who oppose this government's policy of warmongering," says Bill Dobbs, spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, the largest protest group
I suppose that if I could find a good flight I would go out there to protest a little. More than likely the local jail would turn into my host.
-x-
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Fool us Once
Bush and his supporters ought to hire more creative advertising agencies. I really enjoy this new Kerry ad where Bush has that too familiar deer-in-the-headlights look while McCain rips into him in the 2000 debate over the attack on his military service. Too funny.
You can see the ad here.
You can see the ad here.
-x-
My Summer in Summary
With class assignments already posted for the coming week, I've decided that the Summer is no longer here for me. I wanted to post a few of the main things that I remember about this summer that have influenced me for the better.
The last few weeks of the school year signaled a bad summer. Due in part to laziness in not searching for a job and the only unfair grade I've received, I was worried that this summer would be terrible. As it turned out this summer was up there with the best of my life.
The change started when I received word that I was awarded a generous fellowship to work with a non-profit organization of my choice. I decided that it would be most beneficial to work in the area of immigration law with a human rights organization. This was my first real law job (if we don't count the criminal clinic), so I was able to see that I could manage on my own. In fact, with the moral support of Amber, I was able to put out a well-received memo that will be used as a writing sample. I developed a new program for this organization that will help juveniles without family become citizens of the United States. I was able to make friends who will be friends for life.
Speaking of friends, I was able to watch my best friend get married as I stood as his groomsmen. I was there when they met each other and knew soon after that they would make a great marital couple.
I had other friends who have scattered around the country come and visit. I enjoy being able to show people around the city. To show people I care about the things that I love doing. The things that they hear me talk about. My family came down to visit and I took my grandfather to a couple of movies and a baseball game. Together we all spent time together with great conversation and lots of laughter. It's always fun to see that you've gone from being a child to another adult in the eyes of your family.
I was able to do a bit of my own traveling after my internship ended. I went home to see my family. My sister and I spent quality time together. I went flying with my stepfather and sister to see different parts of Oklahoma. We all enjoyed a BBQ where my cat became the life of the party when I tried to trick my sisters and her friends into believing that I caught a "Snipe." A couple of times I ran with my step-father as he was training for the Pikes Peak Marathon, which he ran this morning.
I was asked to write a play for a little theater company and that led me to visit them after they had started workshopping the rough draft of a new play. I was excited to be commissioned to write a new play, and I think that I've written something decent. They were gracious hosts and I was able to make a new friend who will probably come to visit me before too long.
Tragedy that couldn't be ignored hit home. I returned apprehensive about what was going on. Through that fear I was able to say things that needed to be said. Recently things have been going much better for my family. Actually, things have been great. If anything, this helped to remind me that I need to relax and accept that some things aren't in my control. Of course, my normal mode is very relaxed and calm, which is usually a good way to be.
Like other bloggers, I also meet new friends who have blogs. Erin and Jen are roommates in Buffalo, NY, which is a city I had never visited. Erin is just as clever, friendly, and passionate about life in person as her blog would appear. Jen has a great sense of humor and gives thoughtful and accurate advice. They are both very caring people. It is no surprise that these two became bestfriends as they compliment each other so well and both are very creative, intelligent, and sharp. Thanks to Jen for helping me to find her friends like Erin and Dayna (Dayna being a great commenter and blogger alike).
I've shared emails with other bloggers who are now friends or are budding friends. Claire is amusing, able to vividly depict her life, and friendly on her blog. What comes through in emails is how much empathy she has for what is happening in your life. Her gift with giving advice is right up there with Jen's.
Spencer stormed into the legal blogosphere this summer and hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. Originally I was interested in his blog because he is a writer. It wasn't long before my respect for his writing grew stronger as he described his writing experiences, shared his writing, and discussed his views on writing. It wasn't long before his legal knowledge floored me. On occasion I attempted to match wits with him on areas of the law, but I'm simply unable to keep up. We've shared quite a few emails where he elaborates on his impressions. All I can say is that everyone at Chicago should beware, because Spencer is going to kick ass.
Dylan can make me laugh with his posts on the same day that he infuriates me with his comments on my blog or posts on his (this is a compliment). While we haven't emailed, we've argued in comments enough that I watch what I post to make sure I can back up what I'm arguing. He is sharp enough to take me out if I don't take these precautions. It keeps me on my toes. He often seems to worry, on his blog, that he won't employed in the law. Any firm that would turn him down deserves to lose all their clients for not representing them with all the diligence they are able to provide.
I've sparingly emailed Amber and Will. However, I check for what they have to say numerous times a day. I occasionally disagree with Will, but I listen to what he says because his arguments are extremely persuasive. Amber's blog is insightful and intelligent and varied enough to always be entertaining.
Stephanie is also providing insightful entries that have changed my views. Her stories about work are fun to read because of how well she writes. I'm glad that she was convinced to start blogging, because she really is adding a good voice to the web. Hopefully more and more people will find her. Part of why it's so fun to read her blog and send her emails is that her life is just so interesting.
Then the Summer came to an end with doing a lot of clean up at the clinic when a student unexpectedly quit. I helped to iron all of that out and get things ready for the new group of students to take over. It's difficult to transfer clients from one attorney to another. I've also been able to help defense attorneys with a murder case, which was exhilarating for someone almost on the outside. I can't imagine the emotions for the people involved.
As far as entertainment goes I have enjoyed going to the park, on runs, watching movies, certain things on tv, and reading a few really good books. A few great TV shows were cancelled in the Spring, but then the Olympics came around. Movies like Super Size Me, Hell Boy, the new Harry Potter, Ju-On, De-Lovely, and Garden State were all winners. Meanwhile, I read a book on evolution, Middlesex, The Effect of Living Backwards, various plays and books of poetry, and other books this summer.
A good job experience, happy friends, family coming together, lots of trips to the bar for a beer, a little traveling, a few plane rides, and a few more dates than I expected happened this summer. While it hasn't all been great: all in all this has been a good summer.
The last few weeks of the school year signaled a bad summer. Due in part to laziness in not searching for a job and the only unfair grade I've received, I was worried that this summer would be terrible. As it turned out this summer was up there with the best of my life.
The change started when I received word that I was awarded a generous fellowship to work with a non-profit organization of my choice. I decided that it would be most beneficial to work in the area of immigration law with a human rights organization. This was my first real law job (if we don't count the criminal clinic), so I was able to see that I could manage on my own. In fact, with the moral support of Amber, I was able to put out a well-received memo that will be used as a writing sample. I developed a new program for this organization that will help juveniles without family become citizens of the United States. I was able to make friends who will be friends for life.
Speaking of friends, I was able to watch my best friend get married as I stood as his groomsmen. I was there when they met each other and knew soon after that they would make a great marital couple.
I had other friends who have scattered around the country come and visit. I enjoy being able to show people around the city. To show people I care about the things that I love doing. The things that they hear me talk about. My family came down to visit and I took my grandfather to a couple of movies and a baseball game. Together we all spent time together with great conversation and lots of laughter. It's always fun to see that you've gone from being a child to another adult in the eyes of your family.
I was able to do a bit of my own traveling after my internship ended. I went home to see my family. My sister and I spent quality time together. I went flying with my stepfather and sister to see different parts of Oklahoma. We all enjoyed a BBQ where my cat became the life of the party when I tried to trick my sisters and her friends into believing that I caught a "Snipe." A couple of times I ran with my step-father as he was training for the Pikes Peak Marathon, which he ran this morning.
I was asked to write a play for a little theater company and that led me to visit them after they had started workshopping the rough draft of a new play. I was excited to be commissioned to write a new play, and I think that I've written something decent. They were gracious hosts and I was able to make a new friend who will probably come to visit me before too long.
Tragedy that couldn't be ignored hit home. I returned apprehensive about what was going on. Through that fear I was able to say things that needed to be said. Recently things have been going much better for my family. Actually, things have been great. If anything, this helped to remind me that I need to relax and accept that some things aren't in my control. Of course, my normal mode is very relaxed and calm, which is usually a good way to be.
Like other bloggers, I also meet new friends who have blogs. Erin and Jen are roommates in Buffalo, NY, which is a city I had never visited. Erin is just as clever, friendly, and passionate about life in person as her blog would appear. Jen has a great sense of humor and gives thoughtful and accurate advice. They are both very caring people. It is no surprise that these two became bestfriends as they compliment each other so well and both are very creative, intelligent, and sharp. Thanks to Jen for helping me to find her friends like Erin and Dayna (Dayna being a great commenter and blogger alike).
I've shared emails with other bloggers who are now friends or are budding friends. Claire is amusing, able to vividly depict her life, and friendly on her blog. What comes through in emails is how much empathy she has for what is happening in your life. Her gift with giving advice is right up there with Jen's.
Spencer stormed into the legal blogosphere this summer and hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. Originally I was interested in his blog because he is a writer. It wasn't long before my respect for his writing grew stronger as he described his writing experiences, shared his writing, and discussed his views on writing. It wasn't long before his legal knowledge floored me. On occasion I attempted to match wits with him on areas of the law, but I'm simply unable to keep up. We've shared quite a few emails where he elaborates on his impressions. All I can say is that everyone at Chicago should beware, because Spencer is going to kick ass.
Dylan can make me laugh with his posts on the same day that he infuriates me with his comments on my blog or posts on his (this is a compliment). While we haven't emailed, we've argued in comments enough that I watch what I post to make sure I can back up what I'm arguing. He is sharp enough to take me out if I don't take these precautions. It keeps me on my toes. He often seems to worry, on his blog, that he won't employed in the law. Any firm that would turn him down deserves to lose all their clients for not representing them with all the diligence they are able to provide.
I've sparingly emailed Amber and Will. However, I check for what they have to say numerous times a day. I occasionally disagree with Will, but I listen to what he says because his arguments are extremely persuasive. Amber's blog is insightful and intelligent and varied enough to always be entertaining.
Stephanie is also providing insightful entries that have changed my views. Her stories about work are fun to read because of how well she writes. I'm glad that she was convinced to start blogging, because she really is adding a good voice to the web. Hopefully more and more people will find her. Part of why it's so fun to read her blog and send her emails is that her life is just so interesting.
Then the Summer came to an end with doing a lot of clean up at the clinic when a student unexpectedly quit. I helped to iron all of that out and get things ready for the new group of students to take over. It's difficult to transfer clients from one attorney to another. I've also been able to help defense attorneys with a murder case, which was exhilarating for someone almost on the outside. I can't imagine the emotions for the people involved.
As far as entertainment goes I have enjoyed going to the park, on runs, watching movies, certain things on tv, and reading a few really good books. A few great TV shows were cancelled in the Spring, but then the Olympics came around. Movies like Super Size Me, Hell Boy, the new Harry Potter, Ju-On, De-Lovely, and Garden State were all winners. Meanwhile, I read a book on evolution, Middlesex, The Effect of Living Backwards, various plays and books of poetry, and other books this summer.
A good job experience, happy friends, family coming together, lots of trips to the bar for a beer, a little traveling, a few plane rides, and a few more dates than I expected happened this summer. While it hasn't all been great: all in all this has been a good summer.
-x-
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Drinking and Driving: An elementary exercise in Criminal Law
I'm appalled by the recent barrage of ads (usually on Friday and Saturday night television) sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Their "You Drink and Drive. You Lose" campaign propagates the misunderstanding of drunk driving law. In fact, in every state it is perfectly legal to drink and drive.
The Texas Penal Code Section 49.04 ("Driving While Intoxicated") states:
This requires: (1) A person; (2) commits an offense; (3) intoxicated; (4) operating; (5) motor vehicle; and (6) public place.
Of course, the next step would be to look for the definitions of each of those words: What is a person, what does commit mean, intoxication, operation, etc. The important one in this code is intoxication which is defined at the beginning of the section, 49.01 as:
The prosecutors can go about this in three ways: showing that you don't have the normal use of your mental faculties by introduction of alcohol (we'll limit it in this case), or you don't have the normal use of your physical faculties by introduction of alcohol, or having an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.
What the NHTSA would have you believe is that you can be arrested simply for drinking then driving. Imagine if the penal code had this as the law:
I'm being generous by adding more elements than the NHTSA scare ads depict. The result is still very easy to meet because the definition of intoxication, a very difficult definition to prove, has been removed from the elements. What is more there is now a question of how long after you drink should you wait to drive so that you don't "lose"?
A prosecutor has to bring more to the table than the fact that you drank. You have to actually be a threat to the public because you are driving without the normal use of your mental or physical faculties.
When a Judge recently ordered a man to install a locking device on his car ignition because he drank a six pack of beer per night (with no facts that indicate the person drove while intoxicated - possible civil rights violation?), it seems that this misinformation is causing problems. The government is trying to victimize the mere fact that someone drinks alcohol. Appalling.
When you head out tonight to your favorite restaurant, your neighborhood bar, or the liquor store do not drive if you're intoxicated. However, don't think twice about driving if you've just had a drink with your meal and know that you haven't reached your limit. Be safe, be smart, and you won't lose just because you've had a drink or two.
Their "You Drink and Drive. You Lose" campaign propagates the misunderstanding of drunk driving law. In fact, in every state it is perfectly legal to drink and drive.
The Texas Penal Code Section 49.04 ("Driving While Intoxicated") states:
A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place
This requires: (1) A person; (2) commits an offense; (3) intoxicated; (4) operating; (5) motor vehicle; and (6) public place.
Of course, the next step would be to look for the definitions of each of those words: What is a person, what does commit mean, intoxication, operation, etc. The important one in this code is intoxication which is defined at the beginning of the section, 49.01 as:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
The prosecutors can go about this in three ways: showing that you don't have the normal use of your mental faculties by introduction of alcohol (we'll limit it in this case), or you don't have the normal use of your physical faculties by introduction of alcohol, or having an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit.
What the NHTSA would have you believe is that you can be arrested simply for drinking then driving. Imagine if the penal code had this as the law:
A person commits an offense if the person drinks and then drives a motor vehicle in a public place.
I'm being generous by adding more elements than the NHTSA scare ads depict. The result is still very easy to meet because the definition of intoxication, a very difficult definition to prove, has been removed from the elements. What is more there is now a question of how long after you drink should you wait to drive so that you don't "lose"?
A prosecutor has to bring more to the table than the fact that you drank. You have to actually be a threat to the public because you are driving without the normal use of your mental or physical faculties.
When a Judge recently ordered a man to install a locking device on his car ignition because he drank a six pack of beer per night (with no facts that indicate the person drove while intoxicated - possible civil rights violation?), it seems that this misinformation is causing problems. The government is trying to victimize the mere fact that someone drinks alcohol. Appalling.
When you head out tonight to your favorite restaurant, your neighborhood bar, or the liquor store do not drive if you're intoxicated. However, don't think twice about driving if you've just had a drink with your meal and know that you haven't reached your limit. Be safe, be smart, and you won't lose just because you've had a drink or two.
-x-
Friday, August 20, 2004
Singing Loudly Friday Picture
Again, all in an effort to get the male swing votes I present to you Cate Edwards.
Elizabeth Edwards with her daughter Cate at the DNC.
Elizabeth Edwards with her daughter Cate at the DNC.
-x-
The Problem With Sharing
I have a difficult time with this blog, because I can't really classify it as a personal blog. I don't share a whole lot of myself in here. Also, I can't really classify it as a law blog (or "Blawg" - yuck) because it's definately not that focused. At some point I decided I wouldn't worry about what to classify it as and just keep writing whatever strikes me.
However, there are a lot of things that I know I'll never write about. I don't share many of my very personal feelings. In a very apt post, Stephanie says,
My problem is more that I'm not closed to myself at all. Rather, I often dig around inside myself and it's quite scary. Which is why I've really opened up to about four people. Even my very best friends only know fragments of the whole Curtis.
Remember the Serenity Now episode of Seinfeld where Jerry started to let out his emotions and became caring Jerry? He encourages George to open up and share all of his emotions with him. After George does this it scares Jerry straight. I've found that when I share too much a similar, if not worse, situation is created.
Two of the people who really got to know me have little to nothing to do with me. Of course, knowing myself, I figured that would eventually happen. Yet, like watching a poorly made snuff film, I just couldn't turn away. I walked straight into those with a smile on my face under the illusion that it would be good for me.
There is absolutely no reason to open myself up to other people. At least not any more than is needed for friendship. I think that I prefer to remain a little mysterious. There is nothing as painful as offering all of yourself to someone and having that rejected. It is the type of pain that slaps you with your own glove and then steals it. Bah.
When I do post the occasional heartfelt "blah blah blah" know that you've caught me with my guard down. In most situations I don't delete what I've posted, because I figure that the I'll bury it in the archives before many people catch my mistake. In real life I'm even more tight-lipped than here.
However, there are a lot of things that I know I'll never write about. I don't share many of my very personal feelings. In a very apt post, Stephanie says,
Unlike some people, I can’t put my whole life out on the blog because, well, I’m a closed person by nature and there are thought that I protect religiously. Unfortunately, even from myself most times. I have this insane fear that one day when I die, all the scraps of paper I’ve written my random self on will be found, and then people will know me.
My problem is more that I'm not closed to myself at all. Rather, I often dig around inside myself and it's quite scary. Which is why I've really opened up to about four people. Even my very best friends only know fragments of the whole Curtis.
Remember the Serenity Now episode of Seinfeld where Jerry started to let out his emotions and became caring Jerry? He encourages George to open up and share all of his emotions with him. After George does this it scares Jerry straight. I've found that when I share too much a similar, if not worse, situation is created.
Two of the people who really got to know me have little to nothing to do with me. Of course, knowing myself, I figured that would eventually happen. Yet, like watching a poorly made snuff film, I just couldn't turn away. I walked straight into those with a smile on my face under the illusion that it would be good for me.
There is absolutely no reason to open myself up to other people. At least not any more than is needed for friendship. I think that I prefer to remain a little mysterious. There is nothing as painful as offering all of yourself to someone and having that rejected. It is the type of pain that slaps you with your own glove and then steals it. Bah.
When I do post the occasional heartfelt "blah blah blah" know that you've caught me with my guard down. In most situations I don't delete what I've posted, because I figure that the I'll bury it in the archives before many people catch my mistake. In real life I'm even more tight-lipped than here.
-x-
Thursday, August 19, 2004
The Incredible, Shiny, Tasty (yet Lowfat) Penultimate Guide to your 1L Existence
This one is for all of you 1L's about to begin the journey of always worrying that the professor will call on you, listening to fellow students brag about how intelligent they are, shedding many a tear over not making that moot court team, and ultimately drinking more alcohol in one year than your entire Greek House (or the Greek House you hated because you, as an independent, were better than them) consumed at that last Bob Marley Weekend Bash. This is your serious (no, seriously) guide to law school.
1. Loosen up. Law school isn't so scary once you realize that you will graduate. You will make decent grades. You might not be the next legend of your law school, but you'll survive. Law school is expensive so you should take it seriously. You should study your ass off. But in the long run you shouldn't stress yourself so much that, as they say in Real Genius, if you stick a lump of coal up your ass a diamond would come out.
2. Use study aides. You were probably the smartest person in your college and think that a study aide won't help you. More than likely it will help you. There are going to be some concepts that you might not fully understand. For the cost of study aides it is worth it. Buy them used if you want. They are a great starting ground for understanding the law. Make sure that you take your understanding to the next level. Think about how the law is going to apply; or, as they say, "think like a lawyer."
3. Don't horde shared outlines. Nobody likes the person who gets an outline and won't share it. If you make your own outline then do what you want. If a 2L gives you a "good outline" then share it with people who ask you if you have an outline. More than likely they'll get a copy of it. More than likely it won't really be that great. More than likely you'll get pegged as an asshole for trying to get an artificial boost.
4. Figure out what works for you. If you don't need an outline to understand everything then don't worry about it, however, I think that you should make all your own the first semester. It's a good way to synthesize the law. It's a good way to make sure that you understand everything. For me it was easiest to work on my outlines every Sunday. I would synthesize the key concepts that we went over in class. Usually it just formed a page or less of the outline. I've always had short outlines, but I know some people have long outlines. Many people wait until the end of the semester to outline. Just go through the process at some point.
5. Study groups are a good idea your first year. After my first semester I got rid of the study group, but I think it was great at first. Law school can be confusing and it helps to have a few people you can trust. Just meet to talk about what's going on in classes. What is an offer? Go through hypos with each other. Take each other to task for not understanding it. They are helpful to center you on what is important. It's easy in law school to make things more complicated than it really is. Law school classes are often nothing more than common sense.
6. Follow Google's motto and "Don't Be Evil." Law school is competitive and often brutal. The last thing your school and classmates need is another jerk making it hell. Don't cheat, don't rip up books, don't horde shared outlines, and be friendly with your classmates. After you get your first semester grades don't brag to everyone if you did really well. Be proud of your achievement, but don't shove it in others faces. Help to keep law school as enjoyable as it can be by making it a collegial atmosphere.
7. Most importantly, don't forget that you have a life outside of law school. If you like creative writing then make time for it. Read a few books that aren't law related, go to the movies, grab a beer with friends, and don't ignore your family and friends that have nothing to do with the law. You need to have people who are laymen. When you hang out with non-lawyer friends, talk about things other than the law. I know that you're worried about getting good grades so that you'll be able to get a good job or a good judicial clerkship. Well, remember this, they want people who are well-rounded. When you interview they are going to want someone who did well in law school, isn't a bore, knows what's going on in the world, and is good humored. Law school is not everything that matters.
That's about all that I can think of as far as advice goes. Enjoy it as much as you can and good luck.
1. Loosen up. Law school isn't so scary once you realize that you will graduate. You will make decent grades. You might not be the next legend of your law school, but you'll survive. Law school is expensive so you should take it seriously. You should study your ass off. But in the long run you shouldn't stress yourself so much that, as they say in Real Genius, if you stick a lump of coal up your ass a diamond would come out.
2. Use study aides. You were probably the smartest person in your college and think that a study aide won't help you. More than likely it will help you. There are going to be some concepts that you might not fully understand. For the cost of study aides it is worth it. Buy them used if you want. They are a great starting ground for understanding the law. Make sure that you take your understanding to the next level. Think about how the law is going to apply; or, as they say, "think like a lawyer."
3. Don't horde shared outlines. Nobody likes the person who gets an outline and won't share it. If you make your own outline then do what you want. If a 2L gives you a "good outline" then share it with people who ask you if you have an outline. More than likely they'll get a copy of it. More than likely it won't really be that great. More than likely you'll get pegged as an asshole for trying to get an artificial boost.
4. Figure out what works for you. If you don't need an outline to understand everything then don't worry about it, however, I think that you should make all your own the first semester. It's a good way to synthesize the law. It's a good way to make sure that you understand everything. For me it was easiest to work on my outlines every Sunday. I would synthesize the key concepts that we went over in class. Usually it just formed a page or less of the outline. I've always had short outlines, but I know some people have long outlines. Many people wait until the end of the semester to outline. Just go through the process at some point.
5. Study groups are a good idea your first year. After my first semester I got rid of the study group, but I think it was great at first. Law school can be confusing and it helps to have a few people you can trust. Just meet to talk about what's going on in classes. What is an offer? Go through hypos with each other. Take each other to task for not understanding it. They are helpful to center you on what is important. It's easy in law school to make things more complicated than it really is. Law school classes are often nothing more than common sense.
6. Follow Google's motto and "Don't Be Evil." Law school is competitive and often brutal. The last thing your school and classmates need is another jerk making it hell. Don't cheat, don't rip up books, don't horde shared outlines, and be friendly with your classmates. After you get your first semester grades don't brag to everyone if you did really well. Be proud of your achievement, but don't shove it in others faces. Help to keep law school as enjoyable as it can be by making it a collegial atmosphere.
7. Most importantly, don't forget that you have a life outside of law school. If you like creative writing then make time for it. Read a few books that aren't law related, go to the movies, grab a beer with friends, and don't ignore your family and friends that have nothing to do with the law. You need to have people who are laymen. When you hang out with non-lawyer friends, talk about things other than the law. I know that you're worried about getting good grades so that you'll be able to get a good job or a good judicial clerkship. Well, remember this, they want people who are well-rounded. When you interview they are going to want someone who did well in law school, isn't a bore, knows what's going on in the world, and is good humored. Law school is not everything that matters.
That's about all that I can think of as far as advice goes. Enjoy it as much as you can and good luck.
-x-
Emails about Playwrighting
I received the following question:
I think it's helpful to have a background in drama--knowing how plays are structured, how staging and design is accomplished, what actors can do (and can't do), and a sense of where theater has been and where it might be going. It's also good to have a writer's education, versed in literature and non-theatrical forms of writing such as fiction, poetry, journalism, and essay. The more you know about what's been done, the less you have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have an advanced degree in playwriting unless you want to teach.
That said, the most difficult part of playwrighting, in my opinion, is writing dialogue. That is where most people fail. When I applied to grad schools I sent a one act to a Broadway playwright who teaches at one of the schools I was considering. He wrote me an emailing that tore apart a lot of that one act. Then he ended the email by saying this:
I think that his point is true. Dialogue is something that is both difficult to do and difficult to learn. Most writers can get away without a strong talent for dialogue. The writers who have to be gifted in dialogue are playwrights.
I've posted my reasons for not getting an MFA in Playwrighting. The main reason is that I've had enough experience, mainly due to luck, that I've now learned a lot of the things I was criticized for by the playwright in the previous email. Those opportunities won't come to very many people. I honestly think you'll have a difficult time without some formal training.
I guess I am looking for advice. So far I have only taken two Playwriting classes. (The first was practically a joke, so I won't count it.) The other was at my College, and the only Playwriting class we offer. It was mainly just a critical forum for our work, which, though incredibly helpful, didn't really offer me much in the way of learning any type of process.
So how important do you think it is for a playwright to have formal training? Does that mean taking classes? Reading books? Or are writing and the ability to understand human nature just natural gifts that come to some people?
I think it's helpful to have a background in drama--knowing how plays are structured, how staging and design is accomplished, what actors can do (and can't do), and a sense of where theater has been and where it might be going. It's also good to have a writer's education, versed in literature and non-theatrical forms of writing such as fiction, poetry, journalism, and essay. The more you know about what's been done, the less you have to reinvent the wheel. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have an advanced degree in playwriting unless you want to teach.
That said, the most difficult part of playwrighting, in my opinion, is writing dialogue. That is where most people fail. When I applied to grad schools I sent a one act to a Broadway playwright who teaches at one of the schools I was considering. He wrote me an emailing that tore apart a lot of that one act. Then he ended the email by saying this:
Many people believe that they could be talented at writing. Be it that they think they could write fiction, poetry, screenplay, lyrics, or plays. Very few people will admit that they cannot do it, however, the truth is that very few people can do it. Most of the applications we receive have dialogue that is utterly unbelievable. The fact is that most people simply do not know how people communicate with other people. They are able to do it in their lives because of instinct, but they are unable to turn those conversations into believable dialogue.
I think that his point is true. Dialogue is something that is both difficult to do and difficult to learn. Most writers can get away without a strong talent for dialogue. The writers who have to be gifted in dialogue are playwrights.
I've posted my reasons for not getting an MFA in Playwrighting. The main reason is that I've had enough experience, mainly due to luck, that I've now learned a lot of the things I was criticized for by the playwright in the previous email. Those opportunities won't come to very many people. I honestly think you'll have a difficult time without some formal training.
-x-
And it all comes to an End
Yesterday was a good day.
I woke up around 7am to the regular alarm clock of my cat telling me she is hungry. This is usually done with a little lick to my arm or elbow (whatever is convenient for her). Today was no exception. I wasn't ready to rouse myself from sleep, so I shoed her out of my bed and fell back to sleep. Around 9 I got myself from bed to give her the food she so desired. Then I found myself some breakfast and started to get ready for the day.
Yesterday wasn't busy but it was my last day of freedom. Today will begin orientation for both new law students and the new clinic students. I'll be heavily involved in the clinic aspect. At 11 I left to go over to the law school for a meeting with the other chief counsels. We talked about the website I designed and other things. Ate a little pizza. It was good. Then a few of the students hung around to talk about life, sports, school, and other topics. It's always fun to be a part of things.
Despite having a lot of great friends, a very loving family, and respect from a lot of people who meet me it is difficult to not feel loneliness. Mid-20s is such a weird time in life. I'm supposed to become a grown up at any point, but I don't want to. I'm supposed to be secure about my future, but I'm not. I'm supposed to be happy for the good things in my life, but I so often can only remember the hurtful parts.
It is nice to have days like this that remind me that things are pretty damn good.
I went out for drinks with a girl who works near where I live. We ended up at the place for about three hours talking about everything. I'm not sure if she liked me or not, but I gave her a little hug after walking her to her car. She's the only person that I've felt good about for awhile. I'd like to see her another time to make sure. We'll see.
Then I grabbed a quick dinner and called my friend. We went to our favorite dive bar for a pitcher of beer and chips and queso. Scratch that; this time we just had salsa. It wasn't nearly as good as the queso. He told me that I needed to try a white Russian, so I did. It was much better than I would have imagined. I've always been weary of milk and alcohol but it was good. I now have a new drink. I'll try my best to be The Dude.
Today is a new day. Today is when the summer all of ends for me. I'm not sure what the new school year has in store for me, but I welcome it. Perhaps I'll go back into a reclusive state or maybe I'll be inviting. Only time will tell.
I woke up around 7am to the regular alarm clock of my cat telling me she is hungry. This is usually done with a little lick to my arm or elbow (whatever is convenient for her). Today was no exception. I wasn't ready to rouse myself from sleep, so I shoed her out of my bed and fell back to sleep. Around 9 I got myself from bed to give her the food she so desired. Then I found myself some breakfast and started to get ready for the day.
Yesterday wasn't busy but it was my last day of freedom. Today will begin orientation for both new law students and the new clinic students. I'll be heavily involved in the clinic aspect. At 11 I left to go over to the law school for a meeting with the other chief counsels. We talked about the website I designed and other things. Ate a little pizza. It was good. Then a few of the students hung around to talk about life, sports, school, and other topics. It's always fun to be a part of things.
Despite having a lot of great friends, a very loving family, and respect from a lot of people who meet me it is difficult to not feel loneliness. Mid-20s is such a weird time in life. I'm supposed to become a grown up at any point, but I don't want to. I'm supposed to be secure about my future, but I'm not. I'm supposed to be happy for the good things in my life, but I so often can only remember the hurtful parts.
It is nice to have days like this that remind me that things are pretty damn good.
I went out for drinks with a girl who works near where I live. We ended up at the place for about three hours talking about everything. I'm not sure if she liked me or not, but I gave her a little hug after walking her to her car. She's the only person that I've felt good about for awhile. I'd like to see her another time to make sure. We'll see.
Then I grabbed a quick dinner and called my friend. We went to our favorite dive bar for a pitcher of beer and chips and queso. Scratch that; this time we just had salsa. It wasn't nearly as good as the queso. He told me that I needed to try a white Russian, so I did. It was much better than I would have imagined. I've always been weary of milk and alcohol but it was good. I now have a new drink. I'll try my best to be The Dude.
Today is a new day. Today is when the summer all of ends for me. I'm not sure what the new school year has in store for me, but I welcome it. Perhaps I'll go back into a reclusive state or maybe I'll be inviting. Only time will tell.
-x-
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Damn you Cuban
I'm really pissed off about this trade that the Mavericks made yesterday.
We send off Eddie Najera and Christian Laettner for Erick Dampier, Evan Eschmeyer, Dan Dickau, and two first round draft picks.
Two FIRST round draft picks? What are you thinking Cuban? Are you about to sell the team or what? Obviously you don't care about the future of the team. To bad you've gone and made the team worthless, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're a billionaire.
We send off Eddie Najera and Christian Laettner for Erick Dampier, Evan Eschmeyer, Dan Dickau, and two first round draft picks.
Two FIRST round draft picks? What are you thinking Cuban? Are you about to sell the team or what? Obviously you don't care about the future of the team. To bad you've gone and made the team worthless, but I guess that doesn't matter when you're a billionaire.
-x-
Ireland and Canada in cahoots
There is a tradition of respect between Irish and Canadian theater companies. I've noticed recently that the bonds have seemed to grow strong and stronger, so I wasn't surprised by this story in The Stage.
All I can say is the American and English theater world better beware.
The Dublin Theatre Festival has appointed its first nonIrish director, Canadian Don Shipley.
He takes over later this year when current director Fergus Linehan moves to Australia and a similar post with the Sydney Arts Festival. Shipley has directed at major theatres across Canada and was artistic associate of the Stratford Festival in Ontario, as well as being the founding artistic director of the Belfry Theatre in Victoria, British Columbia. He is currently artistic director of the Du Maurier World Stage Festival in Toronto and a former general manager of Harbourfront Centre's World Stage in the city.
The director has been described by the Dublin Theatre Festival chairman Peter Crowley, as "the ideal candidate for the position".
He added: "He has a wealth of experience in exciting international theatre and we are looking forward very much to working with him." This year's Dublin festival, from September 27 October 9, will mark the final curtain for Linehan after a four-year stint as director.
Meanwhile, in a further strengthening of the artistic links between Ireland and Canada, a production of Brian Friel's Translations is being directed in Toronto by the Abbey's artistic director, Ben Barnes.
All I can say is the American and English theater world better beware.
-x-
Birthday Wish
Just a quick Happy Birthday wish to my KC friend Liz! Have a great day!
-x-
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
In the Courtroom: Again
The more I think about this part of the Slate review, the more disgusted I am.
I'm watching these first two right now, and the majority of the people aren't bad looking. Perhaps they won't get picked to star in a TV reality show like The Real World, but I can't figure out the point. Why say that nobody is attractive? Why not just say, "you see people who wouldn't otherwise be on TV. This show, while reality, is more true than so called Reality-TV shows"?
Besides, the student named Jennifer appears to be attractive. Unfortunately she has insane (inept?) views about evidence.
Not a single person on-screen is attractive; the closest we come is one juror who looks a little like a puffy Martha Plimpton with bad skin.
I'm watching these first two right now, and the majority of the people aren't bad looking. Perhaps they won't get picked to star in a TV reality show like The Real World, but I can't figure out the point. Why say that nobody is attractive? Why not just say, "you see people who wouldn't otherwise be on TV. This show, while reality, is more true than so called Reality-TV shows"?
Besides, the student named Jennifer appears to be attractive. Unfortunately she has insane (inept?) views about evidence.
-x-
In the Courtroom
Slate.com has a review of the mini-series, In The Jury Room, that is airing for seven weeks on ABC. Each of seven shows follows a real-life capital case from the pretrial preparation stage through the trial, jury deliberations, and final verdict.
Due to a busy week, I wasn't able to watch the first two episodes that aired last week. However, I taped them so that I will be able to watch them when I have some extra-free time. I'm not sure what will motivate the public to want to watch this show. I know that for me it is to see what the jury understands about the burden of proof; how seriously they take their role; and if they truly understand that each and every element of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a constant struggle, especially in state courts, to define "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is caselaw that gives the definition for civil cases where you use the preponderance of the evidence standard or the higher "clear and convincing" burden. However, criminal law jurisprudence has often been reluctant to give a definition for what you need for beyond a reasonable doubt. What is a "reasonable doubt"? I don't know. I do know that prosecutors fight to lower that burden during their voir dire. Meanwhile, when the defense attorney gets up, he or she wants to raise that burden to the appropriate level. However, in state courts there is not usually a set definition that you can use.
What do we do to get them to understand the burden? We let them define it. "Mrs. Walters, it says here that you have a child? Is that correct?" Yes. "A second ago I was saying that in civil cases the government can come to a mother's house, take her child, and then make her fight for that child in court. How much evidence do you think the government would need to have to take your child"?
Inevitably that answer is always, "A whole hell of a lot" or some variation on that. Then the defense attorney will nod in agreement and point out, "And in criminal cases the government has to bring more to the table. This isn't just clear and convincing which Mrs. Walters points out should require a whole hell of a lot. This is beyond ALL reasonable doubt. That means it'll be more than just a whole hell of a lot."
Through out an entire trial there is struggling over the standard. Has the government really proved their case. Does the jury care about the beyond all reasonable doubt standard? That's the reason I want to watch this series. It appears that this reviewer notes something else that I haven't thought much about.
Trial is unpleasant. There is no other way to put it. It is unpleasant for the jury pool at the beginning, it is unpleasant for those who are picked to serve, it is unpleasant for the attorneys. However, there is a rush that comes with going to trial that is unlike any I've felt. I've been lucky enough to be in a clinic where we can try misdemeanor cases and sit second chair on state felony cases. We have an attorney by our side when we try the cases, but it's ours to try. The theory, the witnesses, the voir dire, the opening and closing are all up to us. Being in a courtroom as an attorney is one of the best feelings I've experienced.
Also, just as a sidenote, many of the female DAs and many of the female judges appear to be quite attractive. It is odd that not a single person on the In the Jury Room series was attractive.
Due to a busy week, I wasn't able to watch the first two episodes that aired last week. However, I taped them so that I will be able to watch them when I have some extra-free time. I'm not sure what will motivate the public to want to watch this show. I know that for me it is to see what the jury understands about the burden of proof; how seriously they take their role; and if they truly understand that each and every element of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a constant struggle, especially in state courts, to define "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is caselaw that gives the definition for civil cases where you use the preponderance of the evidence standard or the higher "clear and convincing" burden. However, criminal law jurisprudence has often been reluctant to give a definition for what you need for beyond a reasonable doubt. What is a "reasonable doubt"? I don't know. I do know that prosecutors fight to lower that burden during their voir dire. Meanwhile, when the defense attorney gets up, he or she wants to raise that burden to the appropriate level. However, in state courts there is not usually a set definition that you can use.
What do we do to get them to understand the burden? We let them define it. "Mrs. Walters, it says here that you have a child? Is that correct?" Yes. "A second ago I was saying that in civil cases the government can come to a mother's house, take her child, and then make her fight for that child in court. How much evidence do you think the government would need to have to take your child"?
Inevitably that answer is always, "A whole hell of a lot" or some variation on that. Then the defense attorney will nod in agreement and point out, "And in criminal cases the government has to bring more to the table. This isn't just clear and convincing which Mrs. Walters points out should require a whole hell of a lot. This is beyond ALL reasonable doubt. That means it'll be more than just a whole hell of a lot."
Through out an entire trial there is struggling over the standard. Has the government really proved their case. Does the jury care about the beyond all reasonable doubt standard? That's the reason I want to watch this series. It appears that this reviewer notes something else that I haven't thought much about.
More than any legal show I've seen, this one gets at the physical unpleasantness of the whole trial experience: the fluorescent-lit rooms, the hastily consumed bad food and warm soft drinks, the unremitting ugliness of both the surroundings and what happens in them. Not a single person on-screen is attractive; the closest we come is one juror who looks a little like a puffy Martha Plimpton with bad skin.
Trial is unpleasant. There is no other way to put it. It is unpleasant for the jury pool at the beginning, it is unpleasant for those who are picked to serve, it is unpleasant for the attorneys. However, there is a rush that comes with going to trial that is unlike any I've felt. I've been lucky enough to be in a clinic where we can try misdemeanor cases and sit second chair on state felony cases. We have an attorney by our side when we try the cases, but it's ours to try. The theory, the witnesses, the voir dire, the opening and closing are all up to us. Being in a courtroom as an attorney is one of the best feelings I've experienced.
Also, just as a sidenote, many of the female DAs and many of the female judges appear to be quite attractive. It is odd that not a single person on the In the Jury Room series was attractive.
-x-
The Beautiful Mix
I decided that I was going to make a mix cd for one of my friends filled with nothing but beautiful songs. The problem, of course, is getting them to flow well together, but I think I've got it.
Sebadoh - Willing to Wait
DJ Shadow - Midnight in a Perfect World
Mazzy Star - Fade Into You
Flaming Lips - Do You Realize?
Badly Drawn Boy - The Shining
Dexter Gordon - Don't Explain
Beck - We Live Again
Jeff Buckley - Grace
Tom Waits - Hold On
Velvet Underground - Pale Blue Eyes
The Beatles - In My Life
Sebadoh - Willing to Wait
DJ Shadow - Midnight in a Perfect World
Mazzy Star - Fade Into You
Flaming Lips - Do You Realize?
Badly Drawn Boy - The Shining
Dexter Gordon - Don't Explain
Beck - We Live Again
Jeff Buckley - Grace
Tom Waits - Hold On
Velvet Underground - Pale Blue Eyes
The Beatles - In My Life
-x-
Google takes on the olympics, parties, trademark, and porn
I've noticed three of the Google Olympic Logos, are there more?
It appears that Google might not get the Gmail trademark? Instead it could go to the Gospel Music Association? Of course, those porn loving computer engineers told the GMA to go to hell. Ahem, all things considered, I'm pretty certain that Google will gain the trademark for the Gmail name.
Perhaps that is because I wish I could work for Google. To bad the beer ran out early. Yahoo understands that is party foul. I'd also add that it's a party foul to force people to have that new "navbar" instead of the advertisments. It would be nice to be able to choose one or the other.
It appears that Google might not get the Gmail trademark? Instead it could go to the Gospel Music Association? Of course, those porn loving computer engineers told the GMA to go to hell. Ahem, all things considered, I'm pretty certain that Google will gain the trademark for the Gmail name.
Perhaps that is because I wish I could work for Google. To bad the beer ran out early. Yahoo understands that is party foul. I'd also add that it's a party foul to force people to have that new "navbar" instead of the advertisments. It would be nice to be able to choose one or the other.
-x-
Monday, August 16, 2004
Random Observations
- The trial got pushed back a day, so I will go tomorrow morning for awhile. Basically I'm going to be the assistant to a couple of defense attorneys.
- If you're at the movies don't do these things: shake your ice (it doesn't make the drink colder), get a huge bucket of soda and sit in the center of the theater (you know you're going to have to get up during the movie), or buy the nachos (the jalapenos smell for a 100 foot radius around you.
- I saw a fat pigeon. In fact, this pigeon was so fat that he reminded me of Jabba the Hutt with feathers
- Speaking of trilogies, if you want to watch the best film trilogy you should see Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, Barcelona, and The Last Days of Disco. They are sharp, sharp movies. He's one of my favorite screenwriters
- I'm glad that students are starting to get back for school.
- Watching the Olympics is more fun than I remember. I can't wait for the track and field.
- Seriously, who really believe that America's basketball team would do well? Lebron James (sorry Cleveland) has no business being on the team, nor does Carmello Anthony. Stephon Marbury is nothing but a ball hog. Duncan and Iverson are the only true all stars. Dwayne Wade is a little young still. Richard Jefferson is actually pretty good, I guess. All in all there was no way this team could do much.
-x-
The Clinic Calls
Today you can find me sitting on the defense side of the courtroom in a murder trial! Felony courts, here I come.
-x-
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Dahlia Gets a Hit this Time
Dahlia Lithwick, who I have criticized, and is often criticized by conservative bloggers is praised at Legal Fiction today. The article entitled Activist, Schmactivist (registration req'd), is on the fiction that is "liberal judges "make" law, while conservative judges "interpret" it.
Legal Fiction is correct: this is a good column. It is insightful, witty, and entertaining which is all of the things Lithwick has become admired for in writing.
Legal Fiction is correct: this is a good column. It is insightful, witty, and entertaining which is all of the things Lithwick has become admired for in writing.
-x-
The Prison Problem
Jim Holt argues that the American prison system will be grouped with such socially unjustifiable things as "slavery, child labor and torture" in the future. In The NY Times Magazine, Holt writes Decarcerate? in this week's Idea Lab.
The modern prison system was designed in the United States in the early 19th Century. It was meant as a way to reform the trouble makers. These were modeled after the debtor prisons that could be found across Europe. America, of course, has never believed in the idea of a debtor prison. Likewise it wasn't long before we didn't believe in those convicted of crimes being whipped, branded, or publicly humiliated. Rather, the legislators thought that reform could happen in prison.
In modern criminal law there are three ideas for the purpose of prisons: deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. All of these purposes have their flaws, but I believe the first two are most flawed, while rehabilitation is a worthy goal in most circumstances.
As Holt points out there are many people who believe that incarceration in America is out of hand. Most of it has been caused by state and federal lawmakers who want to make the general public happy by appearing "tough on crime."
Not only are the prisons filling up but the amount of money it takes to house this many inmates is staggering. Many of these people are in prison for minor offenses such as drug use or prostitution.
The problem has become the mandatory minimum sentences. There are many people who argue that the prison system should be scaled back.
Studies or not, it is doubtful that legislatures will voluntarily push back mandatory sentences. This is the problem with deterrence. It seems to be working.
Deterrence is only an illusion that does not actually happen. It is true that "for a century and half after the creation of prisons, crime dropped steadily across Western nations." However, crime rose again in the 60s across most of the world. In the past decade there has been a falling crime rate again. Deterrence doesn't explain this, nor does it explain the fact that countries and states that didn't expand prisons still experienced the same drops in crime.
Another rationale for prisons (and the death penalty) has long been retribution. This is the most troubling of the reasons for me. Retribution literally means "paying back." It is unclear to me how "the suffering inflicted on an offender compensates for his crime." Is vindictive satisfaction really justice? I don't think so for a couple reasons. First, it isn't clear that there is really any psychological relief for the victims when someone is incarcerated or put on death row. More importantly, as Holt states:
While I wouldn't compare the idea of incarceration with child labor or torture, I do think it needs fixed. Too much of our money is spent on over-crowded prisons. Mandatory minimums are overstepping legislation that has caused far more harm than good.
The idea of prisons needs to change to that of rehabilitation. This has worked in other countries like Finland. The prisons in Finland were modeled after the harsh Soviet Union prison system. Then they changed the entire philosophy of prisons and made them much more lenient. They understand that the punishment is a loss of freedom not being treated like shit by guards, not being herded into concrete rooms with threadbare mattresses, and certainly not being locked away for years because you were smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes.
My hope is that one day the US Prison system will receive a much needed makeover. While it seems that this will require a brave politician to start the change, one only needs reminded that such a politician has lived. Winston Churchill observed, "Treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country."
It's time for the American penal institution to act a little more civilized. The change needs to start with public demands. Civility requires it.
The modern prison system was designed in the United States in the early 19th Century. It was meant as a way to reform the trouble makers. These were modeled after the debtor prisons that could be found across Europe. America, of course, has never believed in the idea of a debtor prison. Likewise it wasn't long before we didn't believe in those convicted of crimes being whipped, branded, or publicly humiliated. Rather, the legislators thought that reform could happen in prison.
In modern criminal law there are three ideas for the purpose of prisons: deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. All of these purposes have their flaws, but I believe the first two are most flawed, while rehabilitation is a worthy goal in most circumstances.
As Holt points out there are many people who believe that incarceration in America is out of hand. Most of it has been caused by state and federal lawmakers who want to make the general public happy by appearing "tough on crime."
In the late 70's, as more and more Americans were being crowded into lockup, states went on a prison-building spree. The inmate census doubled, then doubled again and again. Today, this nation keeps more than two million people behind bars -- compared with only 200,000 three decades ago.
Not only are the prisons filling up but the amount of money it takes to house this many inmates is staggering. Many of these people are in prison for minor offenses such as drug use or prostitution.
The problem has become the mandatory minimum sentences. There are many people who argue that the prison system should be scaled back.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy warned of "moral blindness" in the criminal justice system, and the American Bar Association has just issued a report calling for an end to mandatory minimum sentences and a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation (which recent studies have shown to be effective, despite the scoffing of many conservatives)
Studies or not, it is doubtful that legislatures will voluntarily push back mandatory sentences. This is the problem with deterrence. It seems to be working.
Deterrence is only an illusion that does not actually happen. It is true that "for a century and half after the creation of prisons, crime dropped steadily across Western nations." However, crime rose again in the 60s across most of the world. In the past decade there has been a falling crime rate again. Deterrence doesn't explain this, nor does it explain the fact that countries and states that didn't expand prisons still experienced the same drops in crime.
Another rationale for prisons (and the death penalty) has long been retribution. This is the most troubling of the reasons for me. Retribution literally means "paying back." It is unclear to me how "the suffering inflicted on an offender compensates for his crime." Is vindictive satisfaction really justice? I don't think so for a couple reasons. First, it isn't clear that there is really any psychological relief for the victims when someone is incarcerated or put on death row. More importantly, as Holt states:
There is increasing evidence that the most violent criminals are often driven by forces beyond their control...Clearly, society needs to protect itself from these people. But does it need to punish them?
While I wouldn't compare the idea of incarceration with child labor or torture, I do think it needs fixed. Too much of our money is spent on over-crowded prisons. Mandatory minimums are overstepping legislation that has caused far more harm than good.
The idea of prisons needs to change to that of rehabilitation. This has worked in other countries like Finland. The prisons in Finland were modeled after the harsh Soviet Union prison system. Then they changed the entire philosophy of prisons and made them much more lenient. They understand that the punishment is a loss of freedom not being treated like shit by guards, not being herded into concrete rooms with threadbare mattresses, and certainly not being locked away for years because you were smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Today, Finland imprisons the smallest fraction of its population of any European country (52 prisoners per 100,000 people, compared with 702 in the United States). Yet its crime rate, far from exploding, has remained at a low level.
My hope is that one day the US Prison system will receive a much needed makeover. While it seems that this will require a brave politician to start the change, one only needs reminded that such a politician has lived. Winston Churchill observed, "Treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country."
It's time for the American penal institution to act a little more civilized. The change needs to start with public demands. Civility requires it.
-x-
No Dates Please - Special Requests Do Upset Us
Once school starts up again I will have zero free time.
When I'm swamped it's difficult to find the time to get things started like: writing plays, learning new languages, reading novels, cooking, or (gasp) the beginning stages of relationships.
Looking over this limited list I think that most of these things are enjoyable. Ok, maybe the cooking part isn't so enjoyable. Don't argue: you haven't tried the results when it comes from my kitchen. Don't argue.
With the Grim Reaper emerging from the shadows, I decided that I should start a few of these things. In the past month I've read a few books, written the bulk of a new play (still weeks of editing remain), scratched the cooking idea from the liste, tried to learn Hungarian for a minute, and found four dates for this past week.
This past week ended up being a sort of marathon elimidate episode. I'm not sure how it worked out this way but I found four girls interested in going on dates, so I foolishly set up dates for Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Just meeting a restaurant, going on a walk, and saying goodbye. Nothing major. How could I believe that anything "date" related isn't major? Each night was a different date. Not so much fun.
My vision was that one or two of these dates would produce a second date. Then I'd be able to find the perfect person to spend my little free time with once school is back in session. Wrong. Wrong. Oh how wrong I was.
This has nothing to do with any of the dates; I'm just not feeling it. I was reminded that I really don't like dating and I'm going to follow Nancy Reagan's advice and just say no. The parts of dating I like aren't enough to persuade me to use this dangerous drug any longer.
In my experience dating is nothing if not a rehearsed mess. It is also expensive. Finally, the hit or miss nature of dating makes it both ineffective and frustrating. Whereas relationships can develop in more haphazard ways, which I prefer to this.
Maybe it's just me, but I have "date" stories that I tell when I'm out on initial dates. They are like little monologues that I've perfected over the past seven years. Funny family story? You betcha! Self-deprecating story from college? Oh, yeah. A boss that drove me crazy and what I did to get back at them? Bingo! All of them are formed in such a way that the date will laugh and learn a lot more about me, what I find important, and know that I'm a sweet guy. They aren't fake stories but they are crafted. As I was telling them I remembered how disgusting this whole thing is. I'm not an actor trying out for a part. I'm Curtis and that's it.
Going out to eat and getting a couple drinks is expensive. Not just with the actual money but with the time. Part of me is selfish in that I realize that I'd be having more fun reading by myself or talking with friends than I have on dates. There are a lot of other things I could be doing. Another part of me feels like these dates are about how much money I'm willing to spend. The best relationships I have had don't come from that. It isn't about how I can impress someone with the restaurant I choose or the bottle of wine I will purchase.
This week just made me remember how much I can't do the dating thing. I really can't. I really do think a couple of the girls were fabulous. Hopefully I will get the opportunity to know them more, but I doubt I'll press for a second date. Maybe I just haven't hit that stage of my life yet, but I don't enjoy it. Which is a shame because I do like the discussions, I like the hanging out in parks, and I really can't argue with how fun kissing is. Those negative, unproductive parts of dating outweigh all of this for me.
Dating just seems to hit or miss for me. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but the reasons are often unclear. Why isn't there a second date with this girl but there is with the other. It makes sense that it is hit or miss because you are just meeting these people. You don't really know them before this date except a few brief exchanges. This is not an easy way to start something.
What works for me has always been getting to know someone as a friend. Falling for them because of who they are and seeing that the feelings are reciprocal. That is exciting to me. Then it isn't about impressing this date. Rather, it is about knowing that this person loves me for who I am and won't mind coming to my apartment to laugh at the Dave Chapelle Show. She won't mind when I make dumb puns, because she knows that's just a part of who I am.
Even though I'll go into this school year without the groundwork of a relationship started, I'll be happy. I'm fine with this approach to relationships because I know that at some point there will be someone who connects with me perfectly. Also, when they haven't worked there have been clear reasons why a relationship isn't going to be a good option. While it is disappointing it is understandable. All of my real relationships have ended for reasons that I respect.
That's just something I can't say the same for with dating. With the new school year coming I'll be busy. Hopefully I won't be too busy to keep an eye open for someone who is starting to notice something she likes in me.
When I'm swamped it's difficult to find the time to get things started like: writing plays, learning new languages, reading novels, cooking, or (gasp) the beginning stages of relationships.
Looking over this limited list I think that most of these things are enjoyable. Ok, maybe the cooking part isn't so enjoyable. Don't argue: you haven't tried the results when it comes from my kitchen. Don't argue.
With the Grim Reaper emerging from the shadows, I decided that I should start a few of these things. In the past month I've read a few books, written the bulk of a new play (still weeks of editing remain), scratched the cooking idea from the liste, tried to learn Hungarian for a minute, and found four dates for this past week.
This past week ended up being a sort of marathon elimidate episode. I'm not sure how it worked out this way but I found four girls interested in going on dates, so I foolishly set up dates for Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. Just meeting a restaurant, going on a walk, and saying goodbye. Nothing major. How could I believe that anything "date" related isn't major? Each night was a different date. Not so much fun.
My vision was that one or two of these dates would produce a second date. Then I'd be able to find the perfect person to spend my little free time with once school is back in session. Wrong. Wrong. Oh how wrong I was.
This has nothing to do with any of the dates; I'm just not feeling it. I was reminded that I really don't like dating and I'm going to follow Nancy Reagan's advice and just say no. The parts of dating I like aren't enough to persuade me to use this dangerous drug any longer.
In my experience dating is nothing if not a rehearsed mess. It is also expensive. Finally, the hit or miss nature of dating makes it both ineffective and frustrating. Whereas relationships can develop in more haphazard ways, which I prefer to this.
Maybe it's just me, but I have "date" stories that I tell when I'm out on initial dates. They are like little monologues that I've perfected over the past seven years. Funny family story? You betcha! Self-deprecating story from college? Oh, yeah. A boss that drove me crazy and what I did to get back at them? Bingo! All of them are formed in such a way that the date will laugh and learn a lot more about me, what I find important, and know that I'm a sweet guy. They aren't fake stories but they are crafted. As I was telling them I remembered how disgusting this whole thing is. I'm not an actor trying out for a part. I'm Curtis and that's it.
Going out to eat and getting a couple drinks is expensive. Not just with the actual money but with the time. Part of me is selfish in that I realize that I'd be having more fun reading by myself or talking with friends than I have on dates. There are a lot of other things I could be doing. Another part of me feels like these dates are about how much money I'm willing to spend. The best relationships I have had don't come from that. It isn't about how I can impress someone with the restaurant I choose or the bottle of wine I will purchase.
This week just made me remember how much I can't do the dating thing. I really can't. I really do think a couple of the girls were fabulous. Hopefully I will get the opportunity to know them more, but I doubt I'll press for a second date. Maybe I just haven't hit that stage of my life yet, but I don't enjoy it. Which is a shame because I do like the discussions, I like the hanging out in parks, and I really can't argue with how fun kissing is. Those negative, unproductive parts of dating outweigh all of this for me.
Dating just seems to hit or miss for me. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but the reasons are often unclear. Why isn't there a second date with this girl but there is with the other. It makes sense that it is hit or miss because you are just meeting these people. You don't really know them before this date except a few brief exchanges. This is not an easy way to start something.
What works for me has always been getting to know someone as a friend. Falling for them because of who they are and seeing that the feelings are reciprocal. That is exciting to me. Then it isn't about impressing this date. Rather, it is about knowing that this person loves me for who I am and won't mind coming to my apartment to laugh at the Dave Chapelle Show. She won't mind when I make dumb puns, because she knows that's just a part of who I am.
Even though I'll go into this school year without the groundwork of a relationship started, I'll be happy. I'm fine with this approach to relationships because I know that at some point there will be someone who connects with me perfectly. Also, when they haven't worked there have been clear reasons why a relationship isn't going to be a good option. While it is disappointing it is understandable. All of my real relationships have ended for reasons that I respect.
That's just something I can't say the same for with dating. With the new school year coming I'll be busy. Hopefully I won't be too busy to keep an eye open for someone who is starting to notice something she likes in me.
-x-
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Better Early than Late
Sunday, August 15, Erin will turn 30.
Happy Birthday!
After much debating with myself over the best birthday poem for you, I decided on this one. With your passion for life and for teaching and for learning you will, for sure, teach many students (if not the English language than certainly the beauty of literature and writing) one word at a time.
Teaching English for an Old Composition Book by Gary Soto
My chalk is no longer than a chip of fingernail,
Chip by which I must explain this Monday
Night the verbs "to get," "to wear," "to cut."
I'm not given much, these tired students,
Knuckle-wrapped from work as roofers,
Sour from scrubbing toilets and pedestal sinks.
I'm given this room with five windows,
A coffee machine, a piano with busted strings,
The music of how we feel as the sun fallas,
Exhausted from keeping up.
I stand at
The blackboard. The chalk is worn to a hangnail,
Nearly gone, the dust of some educational bone.
By and by I'm Cantiflas, the comic
Busybody in front. I say, "I get the coffee."
I pick up a coffee cup and sip.
I click my heels and say, "I wear my shoes."
I bring an invisible fork to my mouth
And say, "I eat the chicken."
Suddenly the class is alive --
Each one putting on hats and shoes,
Drinking sodas and beers, cutting flowers
And steaks -- a pantomine of sumptuous living.
At break I pass out cookies.
Augustine, the Guatemalan, asks in Spanish,
"Teacher, what is 'tally-ho'?"
I look at the word in the composition book.
I raise my face to the bare bulb fore a blind answer.
I stutter, then say, "Es como adelante."
Augustine smiles, then nudges a friend
In the next desk, now smarter by one word.
After the cookies are eaten,
We move ahead to prepositions --
"Under," "over," and "between,"
Useful words when la migra opens the doors
Of their idling vans.
At ten to nine, I'm tired of acting,
And they're tired of their roles.
When class ends, I clap my hands of chalk dust,
And two students applaud, thinking it's a new verb.
I tell them adelante,
And they pick up their old books.
They smile and, in return, cry, "Tally-ho."
As they head for the door.
Thanks for the chocolate chip cookies Erin.
Happy Birthday!
After much debating with myself over the best birthday poem for you, I decided on this one. With your passion for life and for teaching and for learning you will, for sure, teach many students (if not the English language than certainly the beauty of literature and writing) one word at a time.
Teaching English for an Old Composition Book by Gary Soto
My chalk is no longer than a chip of fingernail,
Chip by which I must explain this Monday
Night the verbs "to get," "to wear," "to cut."
I'm not given much, these tired students,
Knuckle-wrapped from work as roofers,
Sour from scrubbing toilets and pedestal sinks.
I'm given this room with five windows,
A coffee machine, a piano with busted strings,
The music of how we feel as the sun fallas,
Exhausted from keeping up.
I stand at
The blackboard. The chalk is worn to a hangnail,
Nearly gone, the dust of some educational bone.
By and by I'm Cantiflas, the comic
Busybody in front. I say, "I get the coffee."
I pick up a coffee cup and sip.
I click my heels and say, "I wear my shoes."
I bring an invisible fork to my mouth
And say, "I eat the chicken."
Suddenly the class is alive --
Each one putting on hats and shoes,
Drinking sodas and beers, cutting flowers
And steaks -- a pantomine of sumptuous living.
At break I pass out cookies.
Augustine, the Guatemalan, asks in Spanish,
"Teacher, what is 'tally-ho'?"
I look at the word in the composition book.
I raise my face to the bare bulb fore a blind answer.
I stutter, then say, "Es como adelante."
Augustine smiles, then nudges a friend
In the next desk, now smarter by one word.
After the cookies are eaten,
We move ahead to prepositions --
"Under," "over," and "between,"
Useful words when la migra opens the doors
Of their idling vans.
At ten to nine, I'm tired of acting,
And they're tired of their roles.
When class ends, I clap my hands of chalk dust,
And two students applaud, thinking it's a new verb.
I tell them adelante,
And they pick up their old books.
They smile and, in return, cry, "Tally-ho."
As they head for the door.
Thanks for the chocolate chip cookies Erin.
-x-
Czeslaw Milosz - An Amazing Educator and Poet
Via ...The Clown's Afraid Too, I see that Czeslaw Milosz has passed away.
He has been one of my favorite writers for quite some time. I really encourage you to get to know his writing more. You can see his genius, love, and good nature come through in his writing.
He was 93 years old and lived an amazing life. Exactly what I wish for all of my friends and all of you. He was able capture the hearts of those around him and encourage others to be a better person. Everybody can do that in their own way.
And a poem from Road-side Dog...
If Only
If only we could believe that everything ends with death. Then
there would be no fear that our past deeds may be shown to
us, to the accompaniment of enormous laughter. Nor would we
be faced with our own province of the world, to which we had
been attached, and forced to watch with clear awareness the
stupidity and evil of the living. We would have to remember
the worry of Mickiewicz, who used to say it is hard for a spirit
to act without a body.
Many thanks to Czeslaw Milosz.
UPDATE: The New York Times has a poignant obituary posted (Registration Req'd).
He has been one of my favorite writers for quite some time. I really encourage you to get to know his writing more. You can see his genius, love, and good nature come through in his writing.
He was 93 years old and lived an amazing life. Exactly what I wish for all of my friends and all of you. He was able capture the hearts of those around him and encourage others to be a better person. Everybody can do that in their own way.
And a poem from Road-side Dog...
If Only
If only we could believe that everything ends with death. Then
there would be no fear that our past deeds may be shown to
us, to the accompaniment of enormous laughter. Nor would we
be faced with our own province of the world, to which we had
been attached, and forced to watch with clear awareness the
stupidity and evil of the living. We would have to remember
the worry of Mickiewicz, who used to say it is hard for a spirit
to act without a body.
Many thanks to Czeslaw Milosz.
UPDATE: The New York Times has a poignant obituary posted (Registration Req'd).
-x-
Friday, August 13, 2004
Singing Loudly Friday Picture
Cate Edwards with her family and the Kerry family.
Vote for Kerry/Edwards and you'll occassionally get to see Cate Edwards in the news for at least four years. Hooray!
-x-
Going for Gold
-x-
Kissing the Superstition
Sometimes I have a difficult time communicating around certain people.
Last night I went out with the second girl. She was friendly but not really what I expected. I noticed that it was more difficult for me to converse this night compared to the other date the previous night. I did adjust that once I took note of the fact that I wasn't saying much, but it took a more work to be talkative than it should have taken. We had dinner and walked around a little park where I told her some stories. I doubt we'll go out a second time but who knows.
Because we wrapped things up around 8:45 that evening, I called one of my friends and invited him over to my apartment. He reminded me that a college friend was driving into town, so we gave directions to her and invited a couple other people over as well. After a couple hours we headed out to a bar. I knew all of those people really well, so I had absolutely no problem engaging in good conversation. Then we went over to a girl's house where I met her friend. We were all on the patio drinking beer and talking. I noticed that I had no problem adding a lot to the conversation despite not knowing this girl.
I wish that I could figure out why sometimes it's difficult for me to talk to people and other times it isn't. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with shyness. If anything it seems that it's easier for me to talk to someone when I find them really attractive, which is a little strange.
I decided to catalog my year of conversations over the phone and email.
What does this all mean? I'm not sure if it actually means anything, besides it's easy for me to talk over email, phone, telegraph, and even relayed messages. However, in person it is often hit or miss. And damnit, I kissed the Blarney Stone which was supposed to give me the gift of gab.
Last night I went out with the second girl. She was friendly but not really what I expected. I noticed that it was more difficult for me to converse this night compared to the other date the previous night. I did adjust that once I took note of the fact that I wasn't saying much, but it took a more work to be talkative than it should have taken. We had dinner and walked around a little park where I told her some stories. I doubt we'll go out a second time but who knows.
Because we wrapped things up around 8:45 that evening, I called one of my friends and invited him over to my apartment. He reminded me that a college friend was driving into town, so we gave directions to her and invited a couple other people over as well. After a couple hours we headed out to a bar. I knew all of those people really well, so I had absolutely no problem engaging in good conversation. Then we went over to a girl's house where I met her friend. We were all on the patio drinking beer and talking. I noticed that I had no problem adding a lot to the conversation despite not knowing this girl.
I wish that I could figure out why sometimes it's difficult for me to talk to people and other times it isn't. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with shyness. If anything it seems that it's easier for me to talk to someone when I find them really attractive, which is a little strange.
I decided to catalog my year of conversations over the phone and email.
- From my phone time log it seems that I spoke about 423 hours this past year. This averages out to about 1 hour and 15 minutes a day.
- As far as emails it looks like I've received an average of 15 emails per day.
- One of my gmail accounts has over 3mb of pure text. That is around 500 conversations. About 350 of those conversations come from one particular person
- My Outlook email has messages dating back to 1995 and a total of 9476 messages
- I rarely delete email messages, but I did delete a lot of my harddrive a few weeks ago, because they came from one particular person who hasn't been in my life for a few years. I realized I didn't need to be a packrat with those. There were close to 60 emails from her
- On Blogger I've posted 425 posts since May 2003. That averages out to about 6 posts per week. From May until March I really didn't post anything, so that figure is quite deflated. During the school year the posting is less frequent, but I would imagine the true average is 15 posts per week.
- And I've posted 9192 times at a message board I've belonged to since July 2000
What does this all mean? I'm not sure if it actually means anything, besides it's easy for me to talk over email, phone, telegraph, and even relayed messages. However, in person it is often hit or miss. And damnit, I kissed the Blarney Stone which was supposed to give me the gift of gab.
-x-
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Hooked on phonics Worked for Me
Thanks to Spencer (who has a great post in reply to Joel at SA), I was directed to this post tripe at Southern Appeal that argues for req'd literacy tests:
Tisk, tisk, tisk.
It is true that the Supreme Court did uphold literacy tests in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). Of course, this was also no longer good law, so even a cursory look at constitutional law would suggest that this idea is not only appalling, it is unconstitutional. In Lassiter, the state of North Carolina (oh, the South) prescribed a literacy test as a prerequisite to voter registration. The interesting thing about this law was that it originally had a grandfather clause (obviously used to disenfranchise black voters), but an amendment removed the grandfather clause. Because the Court found that the ability to read and write had some relation to standards designed to promote intelligent voting the Court affirmed holding that the literacy requirements were constitutional on their face where the literacy requirements were neutral on race, creed, color and sex
In strange dicta, Justice Douglas, in his majority opinion, writes:
This seemingly points out what Joel at Southern Appeal is overlooking. Just because a person is illiterate, it does not mean that one is going to be an illiterate person. In 1959, it might have been appropriate for Justice Douglas to ignore the influence of radio and TV as political commentators were not a dime a dozen. Today it seems ridiculous to assume that an inability to read means that a person is unable to make an educated vote.
While states to have considerable power to set voting requirements the federal government has its say. For example, the Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion that upheld remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court found that the temporary suspension of voter qualifications, such as literacy tests, were not unconstitutional because the record indicated that such tests were traditionally used to disenfranchise minorities and their suspension was a legitimate response to the problem.
What does this all mean?
The Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966), despite the facial constitutionality of the tests under Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). We have also concluded that other measures protecting voting rights are within Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, despite the burdens those measures placed on the States. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra (upholding several provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (upholding ban on literacy tests that prohibited certain people schooled in Puerto Rico from voting); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (upholding 5-year nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar voting requirements for registering to vote); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) (upholding 7-year extension of the Voting Rights Act's requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear any change to a '"standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting"').
It means that for all intent and purposes literacy tests are neither necessary nor constitutional. Beyond that, the public outcry that would be created if any politican attempted to legislate for mandatory literacy tests would be quite loud.
I fail to see what is wrong with requiring all voters, regardless of race, to demonstrate a certain degree of literacy before practicing the franchise. In fact, I think it would be a good idea if potential voters were first required to take, and pass, a basic civics test.
Tisk, tisk, tisk.
It is true that the Supreme Court did uphold literacy tests in Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). Of course, this was also no longer good law, so even a cursory look at constitutional law would suggest that this idea is not only appalling, it is unconstitutional. In Lassiter, the state of North Carolina (oh, the South) prescribed a literacy test as a prerequisite to voter registration. The interesting thing about this law was that it originally had a grandfather clause (obviously used to disenfranchise black voters), but an amendment removed the grandfather clause. Because the Court found that the ability to read and write had some relation to standards designed to promote intelligent voting the Court affirmed holding that the literacy requirements were constitutional on their face where the literacy requirements were neutral on race, creed, color and sex
In strange dicta, Justice Douglas, in his majority opinion, writes:
Literacy and intelligence are obviously not synonymous. Illiterate people may be intelligent voters. Yet in our society where newspapers, periodicals, books, and other printed matter canvass and debate campaign issues, a state might conclude that only those who are literate should exercise the franchise.
This seemingly points out what Joel at Southern Appeal is overlooking. Just because a person is illiterate, it does not mean that one is going to be an illiterate person. In 1959, it might have been appropriate for Justice Douglas to ignore the influence of radio and TV as political commentators were not a dime a dozen. Today it seems ridiculous to assume that an inability to read means that a person is unable to make an educated vote.
While states to have considerable power to set voting requirements the federal government has its say. For example, the Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966). Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion that upheld remedial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court found that the temporary suspension of voter qualifications, such as literacy tests, were not unconstitutional because the record indicated that such tests were traditionally used to disenfranchise minorities and their suspension was a legitimate response to the problem.
What does this all mean?
The Court upheld a suspension of literacy tests and similar voting requirements under Congress' parallel power to enforce the provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment, see U.S. Const., Amdt. 15, § 2, as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966), despite the facial constitutionality of the tests under Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959). We have also concluded that other measures protecting voting rights are within Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, despite the burdens those measures placed on the States. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, supra (upholding several provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (upholding ban on literacy tests that prohibited certain people schooled in Puerto Rico from voting); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (upholding 5-year nationwide ban on literacy tests and similar voting requirements for registering to vote); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980) (upholding 7-year extension of the Voting Rights Act's requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear any change to a '"standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting"').
It means that for all intent and purposes literacy tests are neither necessary nor constitutional. Beyond that, the public outcry that would be created if any politican attempted to legislate for mandatory literacy tests would be quite loud.
-x-
I would die happy
Scrub fans and Zach Braff fans now have more fuel for their obsession. Braff has started a weblog for Garden State. I hope he keeps it up for the long haul as he's quickly become a personal hero. Just don't ask him to respond to your emails with a personal email:
You'll be glad to know that I have bid adieu to showers so that I can respond to all emails. I figure that will kill two birds with one stone. You'll be happy to have a personal email and I won't have to worry about us getting close as my rank smell will drive you away.
Many of you ask me to e-mail you personally. Please don't think I'm being a dick if I don't. I couldn't possibly e-mail everyone. That's what's so cool about this blog; it enables me to talk to all of you at once. But if I began to write to everyone individually, I'd never have time to wash myself. It's not that I fear that we'll get close, have an affair and then you'll freak out and boil my rabbit on the stove. I don't even have a rabbit, or a pot big enough to boil one in. I do have a stove; but no rabbit and no pot...irrelevant. Can't do it...rabbit or not.
You'll be glad to know that I have bid adieu to showers so that I can respond to all emails. I figure that will kill two birds with one stone. You'll be happy to have a personal email and I won't have to worry about us getting close as my rank smell will drive you away.
-x-
Minor Inconveniences
I just realized that going out three times this week means that I'm missing a lot of good baseball games. Last night was fun so I guess that I can do without sports for a couple more days. Maybe something good will come out of this sacrifice.
Perhaps I should consider following Tara Palmer Tomkinson's decision, so that I will only miss part of the game.
Perhaps I should consider following Tara Palmer Tomkinson's decision, so that I will only miss part of the game.
-x-
Strange psychology: Deconstructing the conversation between doctor and patient
Death is probably the most difficult human condition for anyone to completely understand. When confronted with death people go through the various emotional stages of denial, isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Movies, plays, tv shows, often get it wrong when they try to tackle the discussion between a doctor and patient about death and dying. One of my friends was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He wrote the conversation with his doctor with his girlfriend after the meeting.
With his permission I'm going to explicate the conversation in the way that a writer would want to do when they are looking at their own dialogue. Does it make psychological sense? Is it the way people converse? Are the characters reading cues from each others and following the conflict of the situation in a psychologically accurate way? There seems to be quite a bit going on in this conversation that can teach people a lot about conversations.
A few days ago he emailed me his recollection of the conversation that occurred between the doctor, himself, and his girlfriend. It started normal with the doctor asking him how he was feeling; he told him that he has improved. The doctor then said that the surgeons are happy with his recovery and broached the subject of his discharge from the hospital. There was a bit of a pause and the Doctor comments that his family is also thinking about his discharge, and asks "Has anybody had the opportunity to talk to you about..."
Although the sentence is not grammatically complete and is followed by a silence, my friend responded nonverbally by pointing to his girlfriend to speak. She replies affirmatively and names Mrs. Parker. The Doctor then solicits a more elaborate response about the content of the interaction by saying simply "about"? My friend then verbally indicates that the Doctor is to speak to his girlfriend because "she relates to what -- what went on." The doctor replied to him with "Oh." After this the doctor asked him a third time, tying this version to the previous two by elongating and emphasizing "about" when he asks explicitly if they discussed hospice.
It was clear that the doctor was using a psychological method of "elicitation" where the doctor tries to get the patient to volunteer information. When that wasn't working he employed a question that specifies a theme that was absent from the previous answer. This narrowed the relevant issues. The physician proffers the idea of hospice which is a topic associated with death and dying. My friend and his girlfriend did not respond to the death and dying aspect of the Doctor's question about hospice.
The girlfriend's response to the questions actually moves away from hospice care and hence from the dying process. Initially she responded to the question with a "No." Then she indicates that Mrs. Parker inquired about moving back in with his family for Robert. The emphasis on "family" suggest this as a contrast with the hospice topic. The Doctor replied in a delayed fashion with "I see." The the girlfriend claims that Mrs. Parker also discussed "life support" with them, which further displays a contrast and marks a difference between her interpretation of the conversation with Mrs. Parker and the topic (hospice) that the Doctor has offered with his line of questioning. Going back to live with his family can also suggest a less serious prognosis for him than does hospice. Nevertheless, the girlfriends talk about "life support" preserves the general topic of the illness while shifting the focus from hospice care.
In response, the Doctor says "I see," waits, says it again, waits, repeats it a third time. Of course, together with the "I see"s and the silences, this fishes for more information about their meeting with Mrs. Parker without the need to ask them directly about the details. My friend and his girlfriend, however, provide responses that implicate topic closure: the girlfriend produces an agreeing, general gloss of the conversation, while my friend aligns with her assessment.
After this exchange, the doctor asked him about his plans for leaving the hospital. He says that he is probably just going to go home again. The doctor tells him that he might consider entering a hospice program because it is a good program for patients who have had cancer; this shift reinforces a topic related to death and dying, thereby alluding to the terminal illness. My friend rejects the option of hospice, claiming that this would be inconvenient to his family and would upset them. The Doctor then asks him what he sees "as happening in the future." This is overtly asking for an assessment of the future.
After a silence, the doctor reformulates his question: he asks if my friend is "hoping that he'll get better." Both my friend and his girlfriend provide resoundingly positive reactions, which shows their desired recovery image. (Recall that earlier the Doctor characterized the surgeons as pleased with his recovery.) Here the doctor may have invited my friend and his girlfriend to adopt an optimistic outlook, which thereby partially accounts for their strong alignment at this point.
The doctor then offers a contrastive assessment, asking if my friend has considered the possibility that he "might not get better." My friend rejected this by saying that he had such "second thoughts" in previous days, thereby suggesting that these "second" thoughts are less significant or less valid than his ideas about getting better. The doctor then says "cause that's something that I've been" and reaches to hold his hand, "kind of concerned about." In the hand reach the doctor may demonstrate nonverbally that he is broaching a serious topic. The doctor then reminds them of how long my friend has been in the hospital. This brings common sense knowledge that suggest that long stays generally indicate serious problems. My friend remains silent.
The doctor's talk here seems to function as something similar to an incomplete syllogism. Here the doctor sets up the first two parts of the syllogism by noting that (1) My friend had been hospitalized for three weeks and that (2) such long hospitalizations generally indicate serious problems. Formally, my friend maybe be invited to complete the syllogism, without it being stated, by concluding that he has serious health problems. The doctor does this in such a way that he doesn't bluntly inform my friend of his condition and more gently forecasts the news.
When my friend and his girlfriend are silent, the doctor proposes an completion of the syllogism by once more using litotes and telling them he his concerned that "there's a possibility that things might not go so well" for my friend. Again, the doctor cautiously shifts from allusive to more explicit talk about the future. There is a lot of silence and the doctor then turns from the possibility of nonrecovery to the importance of palliative treatment. My friend then shifts to a series of four thank yous.
This conversation, which I don't dialogue in full, was a very informative exchange. Part of way my friend has allowed me to write about it is because he recently found out that the cancer, somehow, went into remission. He is doing much better now.
With his permission I'm going to explicate the conversation in the way that a writer would want to do when they are looking at their own dialogue. Does it make psychological sense? Is it the way people converse? Are the characters reading cues from each others and following the conflict of the situation in a psychologically accurate way? There seems to be quite a bit going on in this conversation that can teach people a lot about conversations.
A few days ago he emailed me his recollection of the conversation that occurred between the doctor, himself, and his girlfriend. It started normal with the doctor asking him how he was feeling; he told him that he has improved. The doctor then said that the surgeons are happy with his recovery and broached the subject of his discharge from the hospital. There was a bit of a pause and the Doctor comments that his family is also thinking about his discharge, and asks "Has anybody had the opportunity to talk to you about..."
Although the sentence is not grammatically complete and is followed by a silence, my friend responded nonverbally by pointing to his girlfriend to speak. She replies affirmatively and names Mrs. Parker. The Doctor then solicits a more elaborate response about the content of the interaction by saying simply "about"? My friend then verbally indicates that the Doctor is to speak to his girlfriend because "she relates to what -- what went on." The doctor replied to him with "Oh." After this the doctor asked him a third time, tying this version to the previous two by elongating and emphasizing "about" when he asks explicitly if they discussed hospice.
It was clear that the doctor was using a psychological method of "elicitation" where the doctor tries to get the patient to volunteer information. When that wasn't working he employed a question that specifies a theme that was absent from the previous answer. This narrowed the relevant issues. The physician proffers the idea of hospice which is a topic associated with death and dying. My friend and his girlfriend did not respond to the death and dying aspect of the Doctor's question about hospice.
The girlfriend's response to the questions actually moves away from hospice care and hence from the dying process. Initially she responded to the question with a "No." Then she indicates that Mrs. Parker inquired about moving back in with his family for Robert. The emphasis on "family" suggest this as a contrast with the hospice topic. The Doctor replied in a delayed fashion with "I see." The the girlfriend claims that Mrs. Parker also discussed "life support" with them, which further displays a contrast and marks a difference between her interpretation of the conversation with Mrs. Parker and the topic (hospice) that the Doctor has offered with his line of questioning. Going back to live with his family can also suggest a less serious prognosis for him than does hospice. Nevertheless, the girlfriends talk about "life support" preserves the general topic of the illness while shifting the focus from hospice care.
In response, the Doctor says "I see," waits, says it again, waits, repeats it a third time. Of course, together with the "I see"s and the silences, this fishes for more information about their meeting with Mrs. Parker without the need to ask them directly about the details. My friend and his girlfriend, however, provide responses that implicate topic closure: the girlfriend produces an agreeing, general gloss of the conversation, while my friend aligns with her assessment.
After this exchange, the doctor asked him about his plans for leaving the hospital. He says that he is probably just going to go home again. The doctor tells him that he might consider entering a hospice program because it is a good program for patients who have had cancer; this shift reinforces a topic related to death and dying, thereby alluding to the terminal illness. My friend rejects the option of hospice, claiming that this would be inconvenient to his family and would upset them. The Doctor then asks him what he sees "as happening in the future." This is overtly asking for an assessment of the future.
After a silence, the doctor reformulates his question: he asks if my friend is "hoping that he'll get better." Both my friend and his girlfriend provide resoundingly positive reactions, which shows their desired recovery image. (Recall that earlier the Doctor characterized the surgeons as pleased with his recovery.) Here the doctor may have invited my friend and his girlfriend to adopt an optimistic outlook, which thereby partially accounts for their strong alignment at this point.
The doctor then offers a contrastive assessment, asking if my friend has considered the possibility that he "might not get better." My friend rejected this by saying that he had such "second thoughts" in previous days, thereby suggesting that these "second" thoughts are less significant or less valid than his ideas about getting better. The doctor then says "cause that's something that I've been" and reaches to hold his hand, "kind of concerned about." In the hand reach the doctor may demonstrate nonverbally that he is broaching a serious topic. The doctor then reminds them of how long my friend has been in the hospital. This brings common sense knowledge that suggest that long stays generally indicate serious problems. My friend remains silent.
The doctor's talk here seems to function as something similar to an incomplete syllogism. Here the doctor sets up the first two parts of the syllogism by noting that (1) My friend had been hospitalized for three weeks and that (2) such long hospitalizations generally indicate serious problems. Formally, my friend maybe be invited to complete the syllogism, without it being stated, by concluding that he has serious health problems. The doctor does this in such a way that he doesn't bluntly inform my friend of his condition and more gently forecasts the news.
When my friend and his girlfriend are silent, the doctor proposes an completion of the syllogism by once more using litotes and telling them he his concerned that "there's a possibility that things might not go so well" for my friend. Again, the doctor cautiously shifts from allusive to more explicit talk about the future. There is a lot of silence and the doctor then turns from the possibility of nonrecovery to the importance of palliative treatment. My friend then shifts to a series of four thank yous.
This conversation, which I don't dialogue in full, was a very informative exchange. Part of way my friend has allowed me to write about it is because he recently found out that the cancer, somehow, went into remission. He is doing much better now.
-x-
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Wednesday Song Lyrics
Get Up Kids - My Apology
You would think that I wouldn't repeat something that tore me apart, and made me hate myself the first time. Yet, hatred again.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to turn off this human "emotion" thing that so often takes control of us and makes us into a person we are not, haven't been for years, and try to stay far, far away from?
You’ll be accepting my apology
For taking things too seriously.
Sometimes I’m old enough to keep routines,
Sometimes I’m child enough to scream
For everything. I broke in two.
You’re barely missing me.
I’m missing you
And everything you do.
I really do.
I really do.
Sure I do.
You would think that I wouldn't repeat something that tore me apart, and made me hate myself the first time. Yet, hatred again.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to turn off this human "emotion" thing that so often takes control of us and makes us into a person we are not, haven't been for years, and try to stay far, far away from?
-x-
Caption This
"It'll be alright McCain, hope is on the way."
-x-
The Quiet Town of Rumpus: Episode #5
[Episode 4 is here]
"What we have here is a short list of clues that hopefully'll lead us to the murderer of Ms. DiDi Stuart," Sheriff Joseph Mundle announced to his five deputies, including his son Martin Mundle - all of whom were seated in the debriefing room of the Glenedin County Sheriff's office. "'Less, of course, they're all a bunch of those red fish thangs, which case we'll prob'ly come to the conclusion that the killer's a pile of manure o'er at the Ole Walsh Place."
The Sheriff's audience erupted into a small fit of chuckles. As usual, Martin joined the laughter last; he ceased only after realizing that everyone else had already stopped (and that his father was giving him the look).
Before continuing, Sheriff Mundle pulled down a projector screen, and Martin flipped on an ancient slide projector. The first slide shown was of DiDi Stuart's body as it was found. (Since the Sheriff's office lacked a decent photographer, Jimmy Flavor provided the slides, courtesy of The Rumpus Recorder.) "Now most likely Ms. Stuart's killer was summun she knew or summun she weren't afraid of. She was dressed like she was expectin' to see somebody she wanted to impress. The killer seems to've caught 'er by su'prise 'cause she didn't run fer 'er life 'n' she didn't seem to be beggin' on 'er knees fer 'er life neither. This was inferred from the way she fell. Thar are grass stains on 'er jacket 'n' skirt that fer-ens-ick-al-ly prove that she fell from a standin' position."
"Why was she all gussied up? Was she on 'er way to a dinner date? The coroner's report says the time of death was aproximately 8:30 p.m. on September 12. Was she on her way back from somethin'? Was she keepin' romantic relations wi' the killer? Was she interviewin' the killer? Let's not forget that she was first 'n' foremost a cutthroat TV reporter." Sheriff Mundle then pulled out a plastic baggie with an opened package of microcassettes with one out of the four cassettes missing.
"These blank micro-cassettes were found in the inside pocket of 'er jacket. She may've been ready to conduct an interview, but no tape recorder was found on 'er person or in 'er ve-hickle. One of the four cassettes from this set has been used. The only fingerprints on the package are Ms. Stuart's.
"Ms. Stuart may've been carryin' a purse or a handbag as women off-ten do, but no handbag was found on 'er person or in 'er ve-hickle - this suggests that she may've been murdered by a robber.
"However, if that's the case, why didn't they take 'er ve-hickle as well? Next slide please, Marty." A slide of Ms. Stuart's Ferrari appeared, and four of the deputies Ooooh-ed and Aaaaah-ed.
"Ms. Stuart's Ferrari was found less then a half-mile from the crime scene o'er by the abandoned Popper toaster factory. She was prob'ly holdin' the keys in 'er right hand, 'n' the killer seems to 've ripped the keys out of 'er hand, breakin' two of 'er well-taken-care-of nails in the process." Without prompting, Martin brought up the next slide.
Once the deputies' outraged ghasts at the sight of Ms. Stuart's damaged manicure had subsided, Sheriff Mundle began his delivery again, "Now who are suspects fer Ms. Stuart's murder? Contrery to Mr. Dennis Rogers' eulogy earlier this afternoon, Ms. Stuart was not well-liked by anyone, except as the subject of a few teenage boys' wet dreams." At that, Martin Mundle blushed and hid his face; fortunately, none of the others in the room noticed.
"Why, in Rumpus alone, Ms. Stuart probably had 30 or 40 enemies. Samantha Rogers-Flavor, for starters, regarded DiDi Stuart as her nem'sis. I can't tell you how many times Sam has come into my office ahootin' an' ahollarin 'bout how that 'Stuart hag' stole her beat again. I don't think Sam is capable of killin' anybody even though she can get meaner then a wildcat at times.
"Dennis Rogers, the producer of Ms. Stuart's show Your Big News, hinted that he thought the murderer could have been my brother-in-law Erik Derrik Brawn, Sr.
"Evidently, Ms. Stuart was preparin' a rather embarressin' ex-pos-ay on the old bastard. It's well known that he runs this town, 'nd if anyone is capable of having anybody killed it's 'im. However, the old man himself is too weak to even pull the trigger on a gun, much less hold a gun level enough to shoot a woman as tall as Ms. Stuart in the neck. (She stood at 5 feet, 11 inches in them heels.) I'll send one of you o'er to talk to my wife's brother nonetheless.
"Of course, Mr. Rogers could've been sayin' that just to throw the track of himself. He prob'ly hated 'er more than anybody; he had to work wi' the evil bitch afterall, but if we use that reasonin,' then I reckon we'd have to im-pli-cate Ms. Stuart's husband Bradley Stone, too. He could've had a contract put out on 'er head so that he could collect double in-demn-i-ty on her already pricey life. We know that he could not have killed her himself since he was in Switzerlan.' Right now we've nothing that connects either of those two to the murder so we'll let them sit on the backburner fer now.
"The last person seen wit' Ms. Stuart was that car salesman Rembrandt RouŽ#233, 'n' I am going to drive o'er to his dealership to let 'im do a lil' bit o' talkin.' That is all fer now."
"What we have here is a short list of clues that hopefully'll lead us to the murderer of Ms. DiDi Stuart," Sheriff Joseph Mundle announced to his five deputies, including his son Martin Mundle - all of whom were seated in the debriefing room of the Glenedin County Sheriff's office. "'Less, of course, they're all a bunch of those red fish thangs, which case we'll prob'ly come to the conclusion that the killer's a pile of manure o'er at the Ole Walsh Place."
The Sheriff's audience erupted into a small fit of chuckles. As usual, Martin joined the laughter last; he ceased only after realizing that everyone else had already stopped (and that his father was giving him the look).
Before continuing, Sheriff Mundle pulled down a projector screen, and Martin flipped on an ancient slide projector. The first slide shown was of DiDi Stuart's body as it was found. (Since the Sheriff's office lacked a decent photographer, Jimmy Flavor provided the slides, courtesy of The Rumpus Recorder.) "Now most likely Ms. Stuart's killer was summun she knew or summun she weren't afraid of. She was dressed like she was expectin' to see somebody she wanted to impress. The killer seems to've caught 'er by su'prise 'cause she didn't run fer 'er life 'n' she didn't seem to be beggin' on 'er knees fer 'er life neither. This was inferred from the way she fell. Thar are grass stains on 'er jacket 'n' skirt that fer-ens-ick-al-ly prove that she fell from a standin' position."
"Why was she all gussied up? Was she on 'er way to a dinner date? The coroner's report says the time of death was aproximately 8:30 p.m. on September 12. Was she on her way back from somethin'? Was she keepin' romantic relations wi' the killer? Was she interviewin' the killer? Let's not forget that she was first 'n' foremost a cutthroat TV reporter." Sheriff Mundle then pulled out a plastic baggie with an opened package of microcassettes with one out of the four cassettes missing.
"These blank micro-cassettes were found in the inside pocket of 'er jacket. She may've been ready to conduct an interview, but no tape recorder was found on 'er person or in 'er ve-hickle. One of the four cassettes from this set has been used. The only fingerprints on the package are Ms. Stuart's.
"Ms. Stuart may've been carryin' a purse or a handbag as women off-ten do, but no handbag was found on 'er person or in 'er ve-hickle - this suggests that she may've been murdered by a robber.
"However, if that's the case, why didn't they take 'er ve-hickle as well? Next slide please, Marty." A slide of Ms. Stuart's Ferrari appeared, and four of the deputies Ooooh-ed and Aaaaah-ed.
"Ms. Stuart's Ferrari was found less then a half-mile from the crime scene o'er by the abandoned Popper toaster factory. She was prob'ly holdin' the keys in 'er right hand, 'n' the killer seems to 've ripped the keys out of 'er hand, breakin' two of 'er well-taken-care-of nails in the process." Without prompting, Martin brought up the next slide.
Once the deputies' outraged ghasts at the sight of Ms. Stuart's damaged manicure had subsided, Sheriff Mundle began his delivery again, "Now who are suspects fer Ms. Stuart's murder? Contrery to Mr. Dennis Rogers' eulogy earlier this afternoon, Ms. Stuart was not well-liked by anyone, except as the subject of a few teenage boys' wet dreams." At that, Martin Mundle blushed and hid his face; fortunately, none of the others in the room noticed.
"Why, in Rumpus alone, Ms. Stuart probably had 30 or 40 enemies. Samantha Rogers-Flavor, for starters, regarded DiDi Stuart as her nem'sis. I can't tell you how many times Sam has come into my office ahootin' an' ahollarin 'bout how that 'Stuart hag' stole her beat again. I don't think Sam is capable of killin' anybody even though she can get meaner then a wildcat at times.
"Dennis Rogers, the producer of Ms. Stuart's show Your Big News, hinted that he thought the murderer could have been my brother-in-law Erik Derrik Brawn, Sr.
"Evidently, Ms. Stuart was preparin' a rather embarressin' ex-pos-ay on the old bastard. It's well known that he runs this town, 'nd if anyone is capable of having anybody killed it's 'im. However, the old man himself is too weak to even pull the trigger on a gun, much less hold a gun level enough to shoot a woman as tall as Ms. Stuart in the neck. (She stood at 5 feet, 11 inches in them heels.) I'll send one of you o'er to talk to my wife's brother nonetheless.
"Of course, Mr. Rogers could've been sayin' that just to throw the track of himself. He prob'ly hated 'er more than anybody; he had to work wi' the evil bitch afterall, but if we use that reasonin,' then I reckon we'd have to im-pli-cate Ms. Stuart's husband Bradley Stone, too. He could've had a contract put out on 'er head so that he could collect double in-demn-i-ty on her already pricey life. We know that he could not have killed her himself since he was in Switzerlan.' Right now we've nothing that connects either of those two to the murder so we'll let them sit on the backburner fer now.
"The last person seen wit' Ms. Stuart was that car salesman Rembrandt RouŽ#233, 'n' I am going to drive o'er to his dealership to let 'im do a lil' bit o' talkin.' That is all fer now."
-x-
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
And I debate
I debate with myself so much.
-x-
Honest Reviews are the Best Reviews
For a second I started to feel bad about giving Heidi Julavis such a poor review. At times the book was an enjoyable read. The pieces just didn't ever come together to make it a book worth recommending. I wondered if maybe I should have left well enough alone and just said that I finished her book.
Today, however, that changed when I was reminded that honest reviews are good, because it is just one persons explanation. I was reminded of this by one of my favorite contemporary writers, Aleksandar Hemon. In his review of A Movie...and A Book he really tears apart the author starting in the first paragraph:
My first reaction is laughter and my second is wondering if I would agree with his assessment. Hemon's review is comprehensive enough that I think I can pass on reading the book. If he hadn't written it clearly enough I might be crazy enough to go and borrow the book from the library. Thankfully he has done me a service by explaining why this book is not worth the time it would take to read.
My second reaction is wondering what was the worst book he involuntarily read>
Today, however, that changed when I was reminded that honest reviews are good, because it is just one persons explanation. I was reminded of this by one of my favorite contemporary writers, Aleksandar Hemon. In his review of A Movie...and A Book he really tears apart the author starting in the first paragraph:
Daniel Wagner's A Movie ... and a Book is the worst book I have ever voluntarily read. Wagner is a 29-year-old snowboarder from Switzerland and has never written a book before. It seems that he has never read one either. Beginning with the absurd title, every page reveals such rich ineptitude in thinking and writing that its 100 or so pages feel endless.
My first reaction is laughter and my second is wondering if I would agree with his assessment. Hemon's review is comprehensive enough that I think I can pass on reading the book. If he hadn't written it clearly enough I might be crazy enough to go and borrow the book from the library. Thankfully he has done me a service by explaining why this book is not worth the time it would take to read.
My second reaction is wondering what was the worst book he involuntarily read>
-x-
My first Cell Phone
Over at Engadget the people involved with the site are discussing their first cell phones.
Mine first cell was the same as Ryan Blocks. As he claims, it was the smallest phone in the world at the time. People would always want to hold it and look at it. The display screen was all of two lines. It was sort of a modified flip phone that would open when you pushed this button.
Spring loaded! You bet that was made to impress.
The downside to the phone was that it had the highest SAR level on the market. I think a couple years of using that phone killed more brain cells than a lifetime of drinking. Not to mention the brain cancer that will be arriving any day.
Mine first cell was the same as Ryan Blocks. As he claims, it was the smallest phone in the world at the time. People would always want to hold it and look at it. The display screen was all of two lines. It was sort of a modified flip phone that would open when you pushed this button.
Spring loaded! You bet that was made to impress.
The downside to the phone was that it had the highest SAR level on the market. I think a couple years of using that phone killed more brain cells than a lifetime of drinking. Not to mention the brain cancer that will be arriving any day.
-x-
I'm expensive
Found via Mediocrity's Co-Pilot who found it courtesy of The Slithery D.
Heart of Gold
What is Your Heart REALLY Made of?
brought to you by Quizilla
I don't like how this heart looks, but the end result seems...well. Unfortunately I need recharged sometimes.
Heart of Gold
What is Your Heart REALLY Made of?
brought to you by Quizilla
I don't like how this heart looks, but the end result seems...well. Unfortunately I need recharged sometimes.
-x-
Kerry has no trouble making up his mind
Recently a new commercial sponsored by the Club for Growth PAC has been airing that makes some preposterous claims. Here is the text of the ad:
Well, if you're responsible Club for Growth, then you should own up to both the lies in this ad.
Death Penalty for Terrorists:
Truth be told, Kerry did oppose the death penalty for terrorists and now supports it. However, what they fail to point out, that should be obvious to everyone in the world, is that circumstances in America changed, which altered his reasoning.
In 1989, he was among a small minority of senators who voted against a bill (S. 1798) to impose the death penalty ?for the terrorist murder of United States nationals abroad.? Instead, he wanted life imprisonment without parole.
The ad also gets it right when it says Kerry still opposed the policy seven years later in 1996. This just goes to show that he both doesn't flip flop and understands international law better than most politicians. In a debate with then-Massachusetts Governor William Weld, Kerry said anti-death penalty countries wouldn't allow the U.S. to extradite suspected terrorists who could be put to death. As quoted by the Boston Globe:
Anybody who has even a rudimentary knowledge of international law knows that caselaw proves this assertion. Countries will not extradite someone to a country if that person will face the death penalty.
That, of course, was long before September 11, 2001. Kerry now supports the death penalty for terrorists:
Was Kerry simply "blowing in the wind" of public outrage? His explanation is that he responded to changed facts, not changed public opinion. He told the Boston Globe on Dec. 18, 2002 that anti-death penalty countries would be more willing to turn over terrorists after the 9/11 attacks: "I think 9/11 has changed the capacity for extradition."
"Higher Taxes" 350 Times? Wrong:
The Club for Growth is recycling a figure generated by the Bush-Cheney campaign. It is simply a lie.
Most of the 350 votes the Bush campaign lists are actually votes to keep taxes the same, and against proposed cuts. Some of the 350 votes are actually votes to cut taxes, but because they were votes for Democratic alternatives to Republican-sponsored tax-cut bills, the Bush camp counts them as votes for "higher" taxes -- meaning higher than they would have been had he voted the other way.
Kerry has voted to increase taxes in the past. He currently supports raising taxes on persons making over $200,000 a year by repealing Bush's cuts for individuals at that income level. On that issue Kerry isn't "blowing in the wind" at all -- he's steadfastly against the Club for Growth's agenda of making those tax cuts permanent.
Announcer: John Kerry has a little problem making up his mind. Okay, a big problem.
In 1996 he opposed the death penalty for terrorists. Now he claims to support it. Sometimes he's for welfare reform, sometimes against it. For a 50-cent gas tax hike, then maybe not. Kerry voted for higher taxes 350 times, but now says he'd cut taxes.
John Kerry - blowing in the wind.
Club for Growth PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Well, if you're responsible Club for Growth, then you should own up to both the lies in this ad.
Death Penalty for Terrorists:
Truth be told, Kerry did oppose the death penalty for terrorists and now supports it. However, what they fail to point out, that should be obvious to everyone in the world, is that circumstances in America changed, which altered his reasoning.
In 1989, he was among a small minority of senators who voted against a bill (S. 1798) to impose the death penalty ?for the terrorist murder of United States nationals abroad.? Instead, he wanted life imprisonment without parole.
The ad also gets it right when it says Kerry still opposed the policy seven years later in 1996. This just goes to show that he both doesn't flip flop and understands international law better than most politicians. In a debate with then-Massachusetts Governor William Weld, Kerry said anti-death penalty countries wouldn't allow the U.S. to extradite suspected terrorists who could be put to death. As quoted by the Boston Globe:
Your policy (the death penalty) would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail.
Anybody who has even a rudimentary knowledge of international law knows that caselaw proves this assertion. Countries will not extradite someone to a country if that person will face the death penalty.
That, of course, was long before September 11, 2001. Kerry now supports the death penalty for terrorists:
We are talking about people who have declared war on our nation, and just as I was prepared to kill people personally and collectively in Vietnam?I support killing people who declare war on our country.
Was Kerry simply "blowing in the wind" of public outrage? His explanation is that he responded to changed facts, not changed public opinion. He told the Boston Globe on Dec. 18, 2002 that anti-death penalty countries would be more willing to turn over terrorists after the 9/11 attacks: "I think 9/11 has changed the capacity for extradition."
"Higher Taxes" 350 Times? Wrong:
The Club for Growth is recycling a figure generated by the Bush-Cheney campaign. It is simply a lie.
Most of the 350 votes the Bush campaign lists are actually votes to keep taxes the same, and against proposed cuts. Some of the 350 votes are actually votes to cut taxes, but because they were votes for Democratic alternatives to Republican-sponsored tax-cut bills, the Bush camp counts them as votes for "higher" taxes -- meaning higher than they would have been had he voted the other way.
Kerry has voted to increase taxes in the past. He currently supports raising taxes on persons making over $200,000 a year by repealing Bush's cuts for individuals at that income level. On that issue Kerry isn't "blowing in the wind" at all -- he's steadfastly against the Club for Growth's agenda of making those tax cuts permanent.
-x-
Monday, August 09, 2004
You won't find me side-spiking my hair or french freedom rolling the jeans
A few years ago I was in the presence of a fashion guru and didn't know it. Here he was with his 80s shirt on and the collar turned up, and I just thought he was foolish and living in a nightmarish past.
Rather, as Mel notes, the styles of the 80s have made their way back into the fashion world mainstream.
I want to find this guy and blame him for starting the craze. And craze is the appropriate word for this. This must be led by kids who are not old enough to know the full horrors that were the 80s. The nightmares that the loud clothing, strange hair styles, and general confusion caused America. It is crazy to try to bring this back. Please stop.
I concur wholeheartedly with Erin's number 24 where she states, "I love the 80s. The music. The cheesy sitcoms. However, I kind of wish the hair/makeup/clothes would stay dead."
I concur on two grounds: First, I don't like all the music and cheesy sitcoms. I think we can all do without hearing Don't Worry, Be Happy again or seeing this or that ever again! Second, I REALLY wish that the hair/makeup/clothes would stay dead.
Rather, as Mel notes, the styles of the 80s have made their way back into the fashion world mainstream.
I want to find this guy and blame him for starting the craze. And craze is the appropriate word for this. This must be led by kids who are not old enough to know the full horrors that were the 80s. The nightmares that the loud clothing, strange hair styles, and general confusion caused America. It is crazy to try to bring this back. Please stop.
I concur wholeheartedly with Erin's number 24 where she states, "I love the 80s. The music. The cheesy sitcoms. However, I kind of wish the hair/makeup/clothes would stay dead."
I concur on two grounds: First, I don't like all the music and cheesy sitcoms. I think we can all do without hearing Don't Worry, Be Happy again or seeing this or that ever again! Second, I REALLY wish that the hair/makeup/clothes would stay dead.
-x-
Uh, what's tribal sovereignty again? (Monday laughter)
Bush spoke to journalists recently at the Unity Conference. He was asked something on topic that, of course, he didn't know the answer to. Here's his hilarious response to a question on the relationship between U.S. and tribal sovereignty with regard to the war on terror.
It's even better if you hear the audio clip posted at Majority Report Weblog, so you can better sense the fear in his voice. Then the ensuing laughter is fun too.
In case you were curious what tribal sovereignty really is:
I guess that in a very circular, non-answer sort of way, he was right. They are sovereign entities...
"Tribal sovereignty means that it's sovereign," Bush replied. "You're a -- you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." Link.
It's even better if you hear the audio clip posted at Majority Report Weblog, so you can better sense the fear in his voice. Then the ensuing laughter is fun too.
In case you were curious what tribal sovereignty really is:
An Indian Tribe is a distinct political community. A Tribe retains its inherent powers of self-government absent action by Congress to limit those powers. A State cannot limit the powers of a Tribe.
The source of Tribal powers rests in its people. Tribes have had the inherent right to govern themselves "from time immemorial". See Worchester v. Georgia, 515, 558 (1832). Tribal governments have the same powers as the federal and state governments to regulate their internal affairs, with some few exceptions. For instance, the Tribes have the power to form a government, to decide their own membership, the right to regulate property, the right to maintain law and order, the right to regulate commerce, and so on.
I guess that in a very circular, non-answer sort of way, he was right. They are sovereign entities...
-x-
The Quiet Town of Rumpus: Episode #4
[Episode 3 - can be found here]
A grossly abbreviated version of DiDi Stuart's eulogy (as given by Dennis Rogers, brother of Samantha Rogers-Flavor and the producer of Your Big News, the show which made DiDi a star in Glenedin County and the surrounding area in the great state of but that's not important):
"In life, DiDi Stuart was a kind-hearted woman, a generous woman. She loved children. And dogs. Every Sunday, DiDi worked in the St. Lucretia Home for the Aged, feeding the old folks. We all laughed at her jokes. When she cried, we cried with her "Everyone loved DiDi" I loved DiDi Stuart, and I think right now she is looking down at me from heaven saying, 'It's going to be okay, Dennis. You can do it without me.' DiDi, I'll do it just for you.'"
Just about everything Dennis Rogers said about the late Ms. Stuart was complete fiction.
DiDi Stuart had an equal repulsion for everyone she met, especially children, dogs and old people. No one liked DiDi Stuart, much less loved her. Her husband (Bradley Stone, star of the hit TV show Tahoe Ski Patrol) didn't love her, which probably explains why he didn't rush home from his love nest in the Swiss Alps with his mistress when he heard his wife was shot, as well as explaining his absence at her funeral. Stone and Stuart married each other because they looked good together in photos. Bradley, with his dark hair, dark eyes, broad shoulders and Adonisian musculature, made possible with (hush-hush) steroid abuse, DiDi with her curly, strawberry blonde hair, green eyes, breast augmentations and $33,000 face - they were the picture perfect all-American couple because all the impulse purchase magazines said so.
DiDi Stuart was an overly-ambitious snake, to put it mildly. If you took away the $24.5 million combined of assets she and Bradley Stone had, one could very easily see how she accomplished nothing in her 27 years. She left no legacy. She had no children. She gave to no charities. She supported no cause. She inspired only the most superficial of young men and women. Sure, DiDi Stuart had money, good looks, a great house, beautiful cars and all the material possessions that money could buy, but what did it all mean without any love.
Take it from John Lennon, kids, love is all you need.
Back to our story
When Sheriff Joseph Mundle found DiDi Stuart, she was on her back. But Mark Sandlewood (one of the three boys that discovered the Stuart corpse) confessed to having poked her so that her front was completely exposed. Mark said she was originally on her left side, and the other boys (Wallace "Wally" Hogarth and Erik Derrik Brawn, III) confirmed Mark's testimony.
DiDi Stuart had been shot in the neck with a .38 from an approximate distance of three feet, as the shape and discoloration of the bullet's entry wound indicated. The bullet itself had been dislodged so that the gun from which the bullet was fired could not be as easily identified.
From the angle of the bullet's entry and by the uncomfortable-looking way her legs curled around her body, the sheriff decided that Stuart had been shot while standing, suggesting that she was not expecting to be shot. If she had been kneeling, begging for her life, her knees would more likely have been tucked more neatly underneath her, and the bullet would have entered her body at a different angle. If she had started running to escape her murderer, on the other hand, the murderer probably would have shot her somewhere other than the left side of her neck, and the distance between target and shooter would have increased.
DiDi Stuart's murderer must have been someone who, by the sheriff's reasoning, lacked an apparent motive, making the killer someone whom DiDi didn't think she needed to fear.
DiDi was dressed in a lavender polka-dotted, pale blue designer suit-skirt with two-inch heels. She might have been carrying a hand-held tape recorder, because a number of blank microcassettes were found in one of her inside coat pockets. DiDi might have been carrying a set of keys, as her Ferrari was found a half-mile away near the old abandoned toaster manufacturing plant. But no keys were found on her body. Two of DiDi's fingernails on her right hand were chipped, indicating that something (such as a set of keys) might have been wrested from her fist posthumously.
Gerald Hogarth Jr., the Glenedin coroner (as well as Rumpus mortician, Hogarth Funeral Home manager, and father of Wally Hogarth), pronounced DiDi Stuart dead at 2:16 p.m. on September 13, 1996.
It was a Friday; some said it was the most beautiful day that Rumpus had seen in years.
A grossly abbreviated version of DiDi Stuart's eulogy (as given by Dennis Rogers, brother of Samantha Rogers-Flavor and the producer of Your Big News, the show which made DiDi a star in Glenedin County and the surrounding area in the great state of but that's not important):
"In life, DiDi Stuart was a kind-hearted woman, a generous woman. She loved children. And dogs. Every Sunday, DiDi worked in the St. Lucretia Home for the Aged, feeding the old folks. We all laughed at her jokes. When she cried, we cried with her "Everyone loved DiDi" I loved DiDi Stuart, and I think right now she is looking down at me from heaven saying, 'It's going to be okay, Dennis. You can do it without me.' DiDi, I'll do it just for you.'"
Just about everything Dennis Rogers said about the late Ms. Stuart was complete fiction.
DiDi Stuart had an equal repulsion for everyone she met, especially children, dogs and old people. No one liked DiDi Stuart, much less loved her. Her husband (Bradley Stone, star of the hit TV show Tahoe Ski Patrol) didn't love her, which probably explains why he didn't rush home from his love nest in the Swiss Alps with his mistress when he heard his wife was shot, as well as explaining his absence at her funeral. Stone and Stuart married each other because they looked good together in photos. Bradley, with his dark hair, dark eyes, broad shoulders and Adonisian musculature, made possible with (hush-hush) steroid abuse, DiDi with her curly, strawberry blonde hair, green eyes, breast augmentations and $33,000 face - they were the picture perfect all-American couple because all the impulse purchase magazines said so.
DiDi Stuart was an overly-ambitious snake, to put it mildly. If you took away the $24.5 million combined of assets she and Bradley Stone had, one could very easily see how she accomplished nothing in her 27 years. She left no legacy. She had no children. She gave to no charities. She supported no cause. She inspired only the most superficial of young men and women. Sure, DiDi Stuart had money, good looks, a great house, beautiful cars and all the material possessions that money could buy, but what did it all mean without any love.
Take it from John Lennon, kids, love is all you need.
Back to our story
When Sheriff Joseph Mundle found DiDi Stuart, she was on her back. But Mark Sandlewood (one of the three boys that discovered the Stuart corpse) confessed to having poked her so that her front was completely exposed. Mark said she was originally on her left side, and the other boys (Wallace "Wally" Hogarth and Erik Derrik Brawn, III) confirmed Mark's testimony.
DiDi Stuart had been shot in the neck with a .38 from an approximate distance of three feet, as the shape and discoloration of the bullet's entry wound indicated. The bullet itself had been dislodged so that the gun from which the bullet was fired could not be as easily identified.
From the angle of the bullet's entry and by the uncomfortable-looking way her legs curled around her body, the sheriff decided that Stuart had been shot while standing, suggesting that she was not expecting to be shot. If she had been kneeling, begging for her life, her knees would more likely have been tucked more neatly underneath her, and the bullet would have entered her body at a different angle. If she had started running to escape her murderer, on the other hand, the murderer probably would have shot her somewhere other than the left side of her neck, and the distance between target and shooter would have increased.
DiDi Stuart's murderer must have been someone who, by the sheriff's reasoning, lacked an apparent motive, making the killer someone whom DiDi didn't think she needed to fear.
DiDi was dressed in a lavender polka-dotted, pale blue designer suit-skirt with two-inch heels. She might have been carrying a hand-held tape recorder, because a number of blank microcassettes were found in one of her inside coat pockets. DiDi might have been carrying a set of keys, as her Ferrari was found a half-mile away near the old abandoned toaster manufacturing plant. But no keys were found on her body. Two of DiDi's fingernails on her right hand were chipped, indicating that something (such as a set of keys) might have been wrested from her fist posthumously.
Gerald Hogarth Jr., the Glenedin coroner (as well as Rumpus mortician, Hogarth Funeral Home manager, and father of Wally Hogarth), pronounced DiDi Stuart dead at 2:16 p.m. on September 13, 1996.
It was a Friday; some said it was the most beautiful day that Rumpus had seen in years.
-x-
Sunday, August 08, 2004
The flip flopping Bush
Another one of President George W. Bush's friends turns out to be a real winner. Wait, I'm sorry, Bush says Chalabi isn't his friend as he doesn't really know the guy.
Isn't that convenient?
Ahmed Chalabi has been the darling boy of the neo-conservatives for quite some time. He supplied the oh so valuable "intelligence" about Iraq's WMD and was then tauted as the next leader of Iraq. Recently Bush has distanced himself from Mr. Chalabi.
From Slate.com:
Your encounters were brief?
I guess that Chalabi was more Laura's friend?
Isn't that convenient?
Ahmed Chalabi has been the darling boy of the neo-conservatives for quite some time. He supplied the oh so valuable "intelligence" about Iraq's WMD and was then tauted as the next leader of Iraq. Recently Bush has distanced himself from Mr. Chalabi.
From Slate.com:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly—
A: Chalabi?
Q: Yes, with Chalabi.
A: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.
—President Bush, in a Rose Garden exchange with reporters, June 1, 2004.
Your encounters were brief?
I guess that Chalabi was more Laura's friend?
-x-
It's not broke, you just don't know how to use it
New York Times guest columnist, Dhalia Lithwick argues that "the legal system is inadequate to the task of resolving acquaintance rape cases." (registration req'd: Bug Me Not)
Lithwick seems to believe in the utility of the rape shield laws:
But thinks that there are problems when it comes to acquaintance rape cases:
That isn't a problem with the legal system and isn't really missing the point. Rather, consent definitions vary from jurisdiction. From what I have seen it has never been a question of her "asking for it," but rather if she said no to it. The evidence of her sexual behavior has nothing to do with consent statutes. Rather it usually has more to do with whether there was a forcible or violent encounter. It isn't conclusive proof. It is simply a piece of evidence that the jury can use for whatever purpose. This is why the rape shield law exists in evidence law.
Lithwick then states:
I'm afraid that I don't actually understand what she's getting at. The rape shield laws allow a defendant to bring forward evidence of previous sexual behavior after a rape shield hearing. This isn't that big of a hurdle. It is done outside the presence of the jury with expert testimony. Then the judge will decide if admitting the evidence will be useful to the jury or not.
This isn't a problem with the legal system. Rather it is the way the rules of evidence work. Plaintiff's and Defendant's do not get to bring everything they want to be evidence. Hearsay is excluded, prejudicial testimony is curtailed, motions in limine restrict the words that can be used by lawyers, etc. This so called "problem" is actually a benefit of the US legal systems that allow trials to be conducted more fairly for both sides.
Lithwick seems to believe in the utility of the rape shield laws:
Who cares whether a woman had sex four times that night? No assailant had the right to force a fifth.
But thinks that there are problems when it comes to acquaintance rape cases:
But the problem in acquaintance rape cases - centered as they are on nuanced questions about the accuser's consent and the defendant's understanding of that consent - is that the legal inquiry does come down to whether she asked for it...And all the evidence of her sexual behavior - in this case the physical evidence implicating the accuser's other encounters that week - thus becomes highly relevant.
That isn't a problem with the legal system and isn't really missing the point. Rather, consent definitions vary from jurisdiction. From what I have seen it has never been a question of her "asking for it," but rather if she said no to it. The evidence of her sexual behavior has nothing to do with consent statutes. Rather it usually has more to do with whether there was a forcible or violent encounter. It isn't conclusive proof. It is simply a piece of evidence that the jury can use for whatever purpose. This is why the rape shield law exists in evidence law.
Lithwick then states:
Either the defendant's legal presumption of innocence is flipped on its head, since rape shield laws unambiguously deny him access to potentially exculpatory evidence, or - as a practical matter - the woman's sexual history goes on trial regardless, permitting humiliating public scrutiny often likened to a second rape.
I'm afraid that I don't actually understand what she's getting at. The rape shield laws allow a defendant to bring forward evidence of previous sexual behavior after a rape shield hearing. This isn't that big of a hurdle. It is done outside the presence of the jury with expert testimony. Then the judge will decide if admitting the evidence will be useful to the jury or not.
This isn't a problem with the legal system. Rather it is the way the rules of evidence work. Plaintiff's and Defendant's do not get to bring everything they want to be evidence. Hearsay is excluded, prejudicial testimony is curtailed, motions in limine restrict the words that can be used by lawyers, etc. This so called "problem" is actually a benefit of the US legal systems that allow trials to be conducted more fairly for both sides.
-x-
Inside, Outside, and All Around the Actor's Studio
I'm officially back from seeing a little bit of the workshopping. It was very exciting to get to meet the people, see their passion, and guide them on my thoughts of where characters should be drawn from.
I arrived in the early afternoon (thanks to the time zone change) to be picked up by one of the actresses, Maggie. She took me by her house so that I could put my stuff down and then off to their company. The play has two couples and Maggie will be playing the wife in the minor couple. She's 23 years old and has just recently graduated from UCLA. She was actually fairly shy and liked to talk about all the different flowers she loves. It was funny, because she knows a lot about it, yet I know nothing. Her father grew flowers for a living.
When we got to the place everyone else was there discussing the play. They seemed, strangely enough, to be in awe of me when I got there. That only lasted a little while, and I soon heard all the changes they thought should happen. I was, however, treated with a lot of respect and had a really good discussion with them about my vision. That said, I did agree with some of their arguments, so I will be making a few changes.
Then they assumed their roles and started to act out different scenes for me, so that I could see how it works on the stage. The leads are held by a 34 year old guy named Mark and a 31 year old female named Janna. I believe he went to a smaller school in Oklahoma and she went to the University of Arizona. They both fit the roles exactly as I saw it.
After watching some of this they tried to encourage me to act a little. I alerted them to the fact that I have little acting talent, but they twisted my arm. I agreed to play out one of the scenes and then we'd be done.
I guess we were at the studio for about 5 hours before we left to get dinner. The director offered to get my meal, but I refused. It was a little authentic Mexican food restaurant. The food was great and the conversation was better. They discussed a lot of politics, theater, and just how they feel they are treated as artists. They tried to convince me that I should join their company as a dramaturg or in house playwright. Law school, unfortunately, would make that extremely difficult.
After that we all went out to a bar and stayed until it closed. Then we went to Maggie's house because she had invited a few friends to come. All told I guess there were probably about 15 people who made it there. I'm not sure who a lot of them were, but they certainly had fun. They stayed around until probably 3:30 and everyone cleared out. Maggie has a couple housemates, but I guess they are in Vegas right now. We stayed up talking, playing silly board games, and doing dumb impersonations.
This morning I flew back home standby. As a result of not sleeping during the night I slept the entire flight back home. The little airplane pillow was not helpful.
I arrived in the early afternoon (thanks to the time zone change) to be picked up by one of the actresses, Maggie. She took me by her house so that I could put my stuff down and then off to their company. The play has two couples and Maggie will be playing the wife in the minor couple. She's 23 years old and has just recently graduated from UCLA. She was actually fairly shy and liked to talk about all the different flowers she loves. It was funny, because she knows a lot about it, yet I know nothing. Her father grew flowers for a living.
When we got to the place everyone else was there discussing the play. They seemed, strangely enough, to be in awe of me when I got there. That only lasted a little while, and I soon heard all the changes they thought should happen. I was, however, treated with a lot of respect and had a really good discussion with them about my vision. That said, I did agree with some of their arguments, so I will be making a few changes.
Then they assumed their roles and started to act out different scenes for me, so that I could see how it works on the stage. The leads are held by a 34 year old guy named Mark and a 31 year old female named Janna. I believe he went to a smaller school in Oklahoma and she went to the University of Arizona. They both fit the roles exactly as I saw it.
After watching some of this they tried to encourage me to act a little. I alerted them to the fact that I have little acting talent, but they twisted my arm. I agreed to play out one of the scenes and then we'd be done.
I guess we were at the studio for about 5 hours before we left to get dinner. The director offered to get my meal, but I refused. It was a little authentic Mexican food restaurant. The food was great and the conversation was better. They discussed a lot of politics, theater, and just how they feel they are treated as artists. They tried to convince me that I should join their company as a dramaturg or in house playwright. Law school, unfortunately, would make that extremely difficult.
After that we all went out to a bar and stayed until it closed. Then we went to Maggie's house because she had invited a few friends to come. All told I guess there were probably about 15 people who made it there. I'm not sure who a lot of them were, but they certainly had fun. They stayed around until probably 3:30 and everyone cleared out. Maggie has a couple housemates, but I guess they are in Vegas right now. We stayed up talking, playing silly board games, and doing dumb impersonations.
This morning I flew back home standby. As a result of not sleeping during the night I slept the entire flight back home. The little airplane pillow was not helpful.
-x-
Revisionist History at it's "Worst"
Dylan, at the Slithery D, has responded to my post and makes the following interesting statement,
I have consistency in how I believe a nation should conduct its foreign policy, & that also applies to other countries.
People who favor intervention only because of humanitarian reasons have major problems with consistency. Assume we followed that silly policy, we'd be intervening all the time in Africa & numerous other areas. We don't have sufficient military force following the 'interest' driven foreign policy. Just think what force would be needed to follow the policy that you advocate. I guess we start with China, then North Korea, ? Well, we can always reinstitute the draft. I assume you won't wait to be called, but will volunteer to do your humantarian duty?
Iraq had legitimate grievances against Kuwait. The United States, the United Nations, other Arab nations, etc. ignored those legitimate grievances.
Maybe intervention *was* the best thing when you look at the big picture. However, I don't think that the timing was right. I can personally see voting no to discuss the full implications. Whether or not this is right is one thing. Whether it means a person is going to be weak on national defense is entirely another.
I am, however, glad to see that Curtis believes a nation is permitted to extinguish the soverignity of another and kill and rape its citizens whenever they have an economic disagreement.
I have consistency in how I believe a nation should conduct its foreign policy, & that also applies to other countries.
People who favor intervention only because of humanitarian reasons have major problems with consistency. Assume we followed that silly policy, we'd be intervening all the time in Africa & numerous other areas. We don't have sufficient military force following the 'interest' driven foreign policy. Just think what force would be needed to follow the policy that you advocate. I guess we start with China, then North Korea, ? Well, we can always reinstitute the draft. I assume you won't wait to be called, but will volunteer to do your humantarian duty?
Iraq had legitimate grievances against Kuwait. The United States, the United Nations, other Arab nations, etc. ignored those legitimate grievances.
Maybe intervention *was* the best thing when you look at the big picture. However, I don't think that the timing was right. I can personally see voting no to discuss the full implications. Whether or not this is right is one thing. Whether it means a person is going to be weak on national defense is entirely another.
-x-
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Revisionist History at its finest
This editorial from IBD suggests that because Kerry voted against Gulf War I, he cannot be tough on defense.
They blithely state,
Lucky for them, Kerry doesn't have to reconcile it as history provides the answer.
It doesn't take long before the writer starts to use fallacies to take the mind of the reader off the substance of the issue:
Oh! If France was willing to fight it must have been right! If we were able to gather a coalition that helped in the fight then there was no doubt it was the right thing to do at the right time.
And Kerry wanted to debate a little longer in Congress:
And this was wrong why? If only they had discussed this a little more we wouldn't have young Napoleon going crazy right now.
In case the author of this editorial is reading, you ought to research a little more. I was in grade school when Desert Storm started, yet I remember a bit about the situation.
Had I been a member of the senate, I would have voted against the Gulf War. I've always fashioned myself as being one who believes in a strong national defense.
My basic reason for the war is that Kuwait was primarily the 'guilty' party and the U. S. and the world community, in general, did nothing to address the legitimate grievances that Iraq had against Kuwait. We turned a blind eye and permitted them to continue to steal Iraqi oil and violate the agreements they had made with Iraq.
The Republicans would rather resort to the use of words that tend to inflame, such as murder, looting, raping, etc. instead of looking into the legitimate reasons that the Iraqis might have had for invading Kuwait.
BTW: I'm still of the opinion that the U. S. would have taken no action if we had not had concerns about Saddam's intentions toward Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, our Republican friends will have to look elsewhere to condemn Kerry for being soft on defense. Instead of offering us stupid fallacious arguments about "He voted against the first Gulf War, thus he cannot be strong on national defense," you might try offering something substantial.
I think, more importantly, what the article fails to mention is that Kerry voted no because he thought the timing was wrong. There were legitimate things to debate before going to war. As the article does mention he wanted to talk about what war powers the President actually has. Also, there were legitimate concerns about the slant-drilling. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have voted yes to the war if they had discussed some of the concerns in Congress.
They blithely state,
we'd like to hear John Kerry reconcile is his stance on the latest war with Iraq and the one he took on Desert Storm in 1991.
Lucky for them, Kerry doesn't have to reconcile it as history provides the answer.
It doesn't take long before the writer starts to use fallacies to take the mind of the reader off the substance of the issue:
A total of 34 countries joined that coalition, including France and Germany. Of the 660,000 troops committed, nearly one in four came from a country other than the U.S. Of the $61 billion spent, other nations (including Germany and Japan) picked up $53 billion.
Oh! If France was willing to fight it must have been right! If we were able to gather a coalition that helped in the fight then there was no doubt it was the right thing to do at the right time.
And Kerry wanted to debate a little longer in Congress:
Still, the junior senator from Massachusetts wanted to continue debating ? not only on going to war, but also on legalistic points such as whether the president had the authority to wage war without Congress' approval.
And this was wrong why? If only they had discussed this a little more we wouldn't have young Napoleon going crazy right now.
In case the author of this editorial is reading, you ought to research a little more. I was in grade school when Desert Storm started, yet I remember a bit about the situation.
Had I been a member of the senate, I would have voted against the Gulf War. I've always fashioned myself as being one who believes in a strong national defense.
My basic reason for the war is that Kuwait was primarily the 'guilty' party and the U. S. and the world community, in general, did nothing to address the legitimate grievances that Iraq had against Kuwait. We turned a blind eye and permitted them to continue to steal Iraqi oil and violate the agreements they had made with Iraq.
The Republicans would rather resort to the use of words that tend to inflame, such as murder, looting, raping, etc. instead of looking into the legitimate reasons that the Iraqis might have had for invading Kuwait.
BTW: I'm still of the opinion that the U. S. would have taken no action if we had not had concerns about Saddam's intentions toward Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, our Republican friends will have to look elsewhere to condemn Kerry for being soft on defense. Instead of offering us stupid fallacious arguments about "He voted against the first Gulf War, thus he cannot be strong on national defense," you might try offering something substantial.
I think, more importantly, what the article fails to mention is that Kerry voted no because he thought the timing was wrong. There were legitimate things to debate before going to war. As the article does mention he wanted to talk about what war powers the President actually has. Also, there were legitimate concerns about the slant-drilling. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have voted yes to the war if they had discussed some of the concerns in Congress.
-x-
Do you know the way...
Last night, I received a call from the director who let me know that they wanted me to show up for a workshop. Since this is a company production they aren't going to need any outside actors, which means they won't audition. However, they want me to watch some of the readings to see if I think the right company members are being used in the show.
This means that I flew out of Wichita to come back home. I had to get some urgent client work done at school. Now I will be going to board another plane to fly out of here. Thankfully this ticket is on them. If I'm not too exhausted then I'll fly back tonight, otherwise, I'll sleep on the futon at one of the actress's apartment.
I'm excited to get to go and see how this looks. My best guess is that they'll show it sometime in November, but I'll talk to the director or the company a little more tonight.
This means that I flew out of Wichita to come back home. I had to get some urgent client work done at school. Now I will be going to board another plane to fly out of here. Thankfully this ticket is on them. If I'm not too exhausted then I'll fly back tonight, otherwise, I'll sleep on the futon at one of the actress's apartment.
I'm excited to get to go and see how this looks. My best guess is that they'll show it sometime in November, but I'll talk to the director or the company a little more tonight.
-x-
Tax Law Applications to Writers
First, excuse me if my income tax law is a little rusty. It has been a year since I took the basic Federal Income Taxation course. Although I did well, I don't think that I have a brilliant understanding of the nuances.
One of my friends in the publishing industry told me that the way the IRS handles taxation of royalties has recently changed. Curiousity got to me, so I decided to figure out what is going on in the tax code.
First, there needs to be a basic understanding of the relationship between publisher and author to understand how the they are treated by the IRS. Authors have to pay income tax on the royalties they receive, of course. In some cases, authors are "employees" of their publishers, and so receive W-2 Forms from their publishers at tax time, just like other kinds of workers. Usually, however, authors are not "employees"; they are instead "independent contractors," so publishers send them 1099-MISC Forms, rather than W-2's. Publishers also send copies of these forms directly to the Internal Revenue Service, so the IRS will know what amounts to look for on authors' income tax returns.
None of that is new information, but the IRS released a Revenue Ruling that explains this and more. The ruling has a bland name ("Section 6050N. - Returns Regarding Payments of Royalties") despite it's interesting interpretation of the code.
The reason the IRS issued this new ruling is that publishers often pay royalties to literary agents, rather than directly to authors; and literary agents often deduct their commissions and expenses, before sending the rest to authors. Someone apparently asked whether - in cases like those - publishers still must send 1099 Forms to anyone, and whether literary agents should report the full (or in tax language, the "gross") amount paid by publishers, or only the net amount forwarded by agents to their author clients.
For publishers, the answer is "yes" - they must send (and file) 1099 Forms, even for authors whose royalties are sent to literary agents (rather than to the authors themselves). The new Revenue Ruling, however, advises publishers that if royalties are sent to literary agents, the 1099-MISC Forms should be sent to literary agents too, reporting the literary agent as the recipient - unless the literary agent is a corporation. A separate section of the tax law provides that 1099's do not have to be sent or filed for payments (of any kind) made to corporations.
For literary agents, the answers are "yes" and "gross." That is, literary agents who receive and then forward royalties for their author clients must send them (and file) 1099-MISC Forms, reporting the full amount of the royalties received from publishers, not simply the net amount forwarded to their clients.
Link to the Revenue Ruling in question (Acrobat Reader req'd).
One of my friends in the publishing industry told me that the way the IRS handles taxation of royalties has recently changed. Curiousity got to me, so I decided to figure out what is going on in the tax code.
First, there needs to be a basic understanding of the relationship between publisher and author to understand how the they are treated by the IRS. Authors have to pay income tax on the royalties they receive, of course. In some cases, authors are "employees" of their publishers, and so receive W-2 Forms from their publishers at tax time, just like other kinds of workers. Usually, however, authors are not "employees"; they are instead "independent contractors," so publishers send them 1099-MISC Forms, rather than W-2's. Publishers also send copies of these forms directly to the Internal Revenue Service, so the IRS will know what amounts to look for on authors' income tax returns.
None of that is new information, but the IRS released a Revenue Ruling that explains this and more. The ruling has a bland name ("Section 6050N. - Returns Regarding Payments of Royalties") despite it's interesting interpretation of the code.
The reason the IRS issued this new ruling is that publishers often pay royalties to literary agents, rather than directly to authors; and literary agents often deduct their commissions and expenses, before sending the rest to authors. Someone apparently asked whether - in cases like those - publishers still must send 1099 Forms to anyone, and whether literary agents should report the full (or in tax language, the "gross") amount paid by publishers, or only the net amount forwarded by agents to their author clients.
For publishers, the answer is "yes" - they must send (and file) 1099 Forms, even for authors whose royalties are sent to literary agents (rather than to the authors themselves). The new Revenue Ruling, however, advises publishers that if royalties are sent to literary agents, the 1099-MISC Forms should be sent to literary agents too, reporting the literary agent as the recipient - unless the literary agent is a corporation. A separate section of the tax law provides that 1099's do not have to be sent or filed for payments (of any kind) made to corporations.
For literary agents, the answers are "yes" and "gross." That is, literary agents who receive and then forward royalties for their author clients must send them (and file) 1099-MISC Forms, reporting the full amount of the royalties received from publishers, not simply the net amount forwarded to their clients.
Link to the Revenue Ruling in question (Acrobat Reader req'd).
-x-
Friday, August 06, 2004
Singing Loudly Friday Picture
In an effort to help sway the male vote towards Kerry/Edwards, I will post a weekly photo of Cate Edwards. Enjoy.
Caption: Sitting with arms raised and a look of bemusement?
Caption: Sitting with arms raised and a look of bemusement?
-x-
Seinfeld, Hooray!
More of the specifics about the Seinfeld dvds has been reported by Variety.
The first volume will feature a total of 18 episodes. This will include the pilot in which we see a very different Seinfeld apartment, no Elaine, and a Kramer who hasn't left the apartment complex "in years." I always thought it was a strange episode, but it is informative to see the growth of the show.
The second volume will have a total of 22 episodes. That equals about eleven hours of Seinfeld fun plus extras. The cost for this will be around $50 for each volume. Unless, like me, you will get the two volume holiday gift set that has "Monk's Diner" salt and pepper shakers, playing cards, and a script with copies of handwritten notes by co-creator Larry David.
The delay has been caused by the hours of interviews, commentaries, and various deleted scenes and outtakes.
I am going to be saving my money for November 23.
The first volume will feature a total of 18 episodes. This will include the pilot in which we see a very different Seinfeld apartment, no Elaine, and a Kramer who hasn't left the apartment complex "in years." I always thought it was a strange episode, but it is informative to see the growth of the show.
The second volume will have a total of 22 episodes. That equals about eleven hours of Seinfeld fun plus extras. The cost for this will be around $50 for each volume. Unless, like me, you will get the two volume holiday gift set that has "Monk's Diner" salt and pepper shakers, playing cards, and a script with copies of handwritten notes by co-creator Larry David.
The delay has been caused by the hours of interviews, commentaries, and various deleted scenes and outtakes.
I am going to be saving my money for November 23.
-x-
Presidential Elections and Popular Music: Which influences which?
I wanted to look at the top songs on pop music radio the week of various elections to see if there is any correlation.
2000
1996
1992
1988
1984
1980
1976
1972
Interesting if nothing else.
2000
The disputed election that matched George W. Bush against then VP Al Gore found Nsync - It's Gonna Be Me as the top song. At the end of the election week both candidates were telling America that it is gonna be me when the election dispute was settled. Ultimately, of course, Bush won the electoral college vote.
1996
Was a fairly unremarkable election contest between Senator Bob Dole and the incumbent President Clinton. Ironically, it was the Alanis Morisette - You Learn that plagued the airwaves that election week. Perhaps the Republican Party learned not to put such an uncharismatic candidate up against the likes of Clinton. Maybe Bob Dole learned that he should relax and be himself instead of falling off stages.
1992
Governor Bill Clinton decided to take on President Bush in this election. The charts were filled with prophesy with Boys II Men - End of the Road signaling just that for Bush. Unfortunately, it was not the last we saw of independent candidate Ross Perot, who took awhile to realize that he had no road.
1988
Vice President George Bush took to the campaign trail against Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts. The hit song that week was Steve Winwood - Roll with It. Following in the footsteps of President Reagan, Bush had no problem just rolling with it against a rather weak opponent.
1984
The typical causes of the parties were swapped in this election as Senator Mondale accused incumbent President Reagan of horrendous budget deficits. The radio was flooded with the gentle sounds of Stevie Wonder - I Just Called to Say I Love You, which was the American public. The voters showed up to the election and gave President Reagan an 18 point margin win.
1980
Incumbent President Carter was matched up against Governor Reagan from California in this election. Supertramp - Dreamer was the song flooding the airwaves. I think that the whole idea of a "misery index" was a bit of dreaming from the Republican party, however, Carter and the Democrats weren't savvy enough to defeat that and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Of course, there are also dreams of some massive conspiracy surrounding the hostage situation as they were released when Reagan took office. Could it have been planned that way or are people merely dreaming?
1976
Incumbent President Ford (never elected President or Vice President, correct?) faced opposition by both Governor Carter of Georgia, and, in the primaries, from Governor Reagan. It came down to Ford and Carter at the elections while Chicago - If You Leave Me Now was ruling the radiowaves. Of course, as Reagan suspected, Ford did leave us after asserting the false claim that Eastern Europe was free from Soviet control. It was a narrow victory but Carter won.
1972
Nixon went against the non-opponent of George McGovern. McGovern was soon depicted as a radical leftist and had no chance. Johnny Nash - I Can See Clearly Now came true when Nixon had to step down from office.
Interesting if nothing else.
-x-
What drives a Prosecutor?
This morning I read, in this story, the following quote from a prosecutor concerning the Kobe Bryant case,
Anyone who has any criminal defense experience can tell you that is usually false. Most DA offices bring many cases that no sane person would truly have confidence in. The reason why they pursue them is a mixture of government funds, negative attention from other prosecutors if they dismiss a case, and the need for wins to advance in the DA office ranks. A win consists of guilty verdicts, pro-government plea bargains, and even deferred adjudication.
The area where this is seen most, although not exclusively, is in family violence cases. Often this is where a spouse, at one time, alleged abuse, but has now signed an affidavit for non-prosecution. This is where he or she voluntarily goes to the DA's office and says that he or she was falsely alleged abuse and will not testify against the other spouse. This statement by the DA's in the Bryant case is all too true.
This isn't because they have a duty to move on in cases in which they have confidence. Rather, in these types of cases there is massive governmental funding available. The downside to this is that if they have too many dismissals of cases then the government takes away that funding.
This is the very reason we saw courts unconstitutionally allowing an excited utterance exception that occurred up to 23 hours later. This mean that if a spouse went to the police 23 hours after the alleged abuse, it did not matter if that spouse testified against the other spouse. Thankfully, Crawford v. Washington has fixed that practice. At least to some extent.
I have no real opinion about the whether Bryant did anything, besides that right now he is innocent of the charges. However, I think that there is little chance of a fair trial. With the recent posting of the victims full name on the court website in a document that was supposed to be sealed, and, accidentally emailing transcripts of a closed rape shield meeting to seven media outlets there is no chance of a fair trial. The girl alleging rape has had her life threatened, moved from state to state, and ultimately has seen her life ruined. All of this, of course, in the pursuit of justice. She wants to drop the criminal allegations and pursue this in civil courts.
I have little faith that the DAs will do that. I successfully argued for two dismissals in family violence courts, but it was extremely difficult. I was met with opposition from DAs in that court room and in others. The Judge, at first, was nearly unwilling to listen to my legal arguments for why trial was inappropriate. This difficulty was before the trial started; before the DAs had become fully vested in the outcome.
Not to be too damning of prosecutors, because I know of a few who are very fair. I think that a good amount of the DAs go into it for noble reasons. They bring real criminals to justice It just has never been my experience that prosecutors in district courts aren't only moving forward in "cases in which they have confidence." Right now, for instance, I'm handling a case that they are charging criminal trespass against a bonded repo man who entered an apartment after repeat attempts to work with the lady to get back the Rent-A-Center furniture. He followed all the usual protocol but has still been charged with a misdemeanor. The criminal code itself has exceptions that go against the DA's case, yet they somehow have "confidence." Please, what they are doing is wasting time and resources on frivolous prosecutions when they could be devoting those resources to win cases against people who have hurt society.
"Prosecutors are bound by a code of conduct to move forward only with cases in which they have confidence," said District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Krista Flannigan. "We're moving forward."
Anyone who has any criminal defense experience can tell you that is usually false. Most DA offices bring many cases that no sane person would truly have confidence in. The reason why they pursue them is a mixture of government funds, negative attention from other prosecutors if they dismiss a case, and the need for wins to advance in the DA office ranks. A win consists of guilty verdicts, pro-government plea bargains, and even deferred adjudication.
The area where this is seen most, although not exclusively, is in family violence cases. Often this is where a spouse, at one time, alleged abuse, but has now signed an affidavit for non-prosecution. This is where he or she voluntarily goes to the DA's office and says that he or she was falsely alleged abuse and will not testify against the other spouse. This statement by the DA's in the Bryant case is all too true.
"Any victim has the right to be heard," said Flannigan. "But ultimately it's the district attorney who makes that decision."
This isn't because they have a duty to move on in cases in which they have confidence. Rather, in these types of cases there is massive governmental funding available. The downside to this is that if they have too many dismissals of cases then the government takes away that funding.
This is the very reason we saw courts unconstitutionally allowing an excited utterance exception that occurred up to 23 hours later. This mean that if a spouse went to the police 23 hours after the alleged abuse, it did not matter if that spouse testified against the other spouse. Thankfully, Crawford v. Washington has fixed that practice. At least to some extent.
I have no real opinion about the whether Bryant did anything, besides that right now he is innocent of the charges. However, I think that there is little chance of a fair trial. With the recent posting of the victims full name on the court website in a document that was supposed to be sealed, and, accidentally emailing transcripts of a closed rape shield meeting to seven media outlets there is no chance of a fair trial. The girl alleging rape has had her life threatened, moved from state to state, and ultimately has seen her life ruined. All of this, of course, in the pursuit of justice. She wants to drop the criminal allegations and pursue this in civil courts.
I have little faith that the DAs will do that. I successfully argued for two dismissals in family violence courts, but it was extremely difficult. I was met with opposition from DAs in that court room and in others. The Judge, at first, was nearly unwilling to listen to my legal arguments for why trial was inappropriate. This difficulty was before the trial started; before the DAs had become fully vested in the outcome.
Not to be too damning of prosecutors, because I know of a few who are very fair. I think that a good amount of the DAs go into it for noble reasons. They bring real criminals to justice It just has never been my experience that prosecutors in district courts aren't only moving forward in "cases in which they have confidence." Right now, for instance, I'm handling a case that they are charging criminal trespass against a bonded repo man who entered an apartment after repeat attempts to work with the lady to get back the Rent-A-Center furniture. He followed all the usual protocol but has still been charged with a misdemeanor. The criminal code itself has exceptions that go against the DA's case, yet they somehow have "confidence." Please, what they are doing is wasting time and resources on frivolous prosecutions when they could be devoting those resources to win cases against people who have hurt society.
-x-
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Brief Encounters
Earlier today I flew to my hometown to visit with my brother and stay with my family. The flight went very well; it was actually the first time I wanted to talk with the lady next to me. When I sat down I noticed that an older lady was sitting by the window reading Angels in America. As that happens to be one of my favorite plays, I was interested in seeing what she thought.
After a little while it became clear that she is a nun. Her name is Sister Helen. I was pretty surprised, but I was interested in talking more. She started to ask me a lot of questions and seemed to really care about what was going on in my life. Before long I had told her the reason why I was going home, some of the experiences (both good and bad) from my past, and a little about things from these past few weeks.
Interspersed in this was a lot of advice about how I should change myself. A lot of her advice was spiritually based, but just as much came from things that indicted a strong knowledge of popular society. She really seemed to empathize with a lot of the pressures. She advised me, in regards to that, that I shouldn't place all my fears of failure on myself. Instead, I should realize that things don't always work out in ways that will provide immediate gratification. However, if I keep trying to make everything turn out perfect it'll only increase the feelings of failure when things don't go as planned. On relationships she talked a lot about how she learned the hard way that the only way to change how people act towards you is to change yourself.
While I don't think that her advice was any sort of a golden key. It did leave me feeling very refreshed. Just to talk with someone who really appeared to understand. Someone who didn't seem to have an ounce of malice in her. Soon after I went to visit my brother. In some ways it seems that he reveres me the same way I looked up to Sister Helen.
My brother is unwilling, at this point, to talk to anyone. I was the first person he started to talk to. He didn't open up to what's going on in his life, but he did talk to me. I was able to get him to smile and laugh. Somehow, in front of him, I was able to stay strong and just enjoy my time with him. The visiting time ended at 6pm today because they have group meetings. I bought him a Mountain Dew and told him I would be back first thing tomorrow with a couple books he can read.
While I was strong in front of him it still broke my heart. When I got home I spent some time talking to my mom and stepdad about what my impression of the situation is. He won't talk to my mom; he just cries. I think that she was relieved that he would laugh a little with me.
I'm going to take Sister Helen's advice and remember that I can't change everything. I have to be willing to not try to force things. To not set up a situation where I try to force a certain result because I believe that that result equals achievement. I'll just take it once step at a time and let him show me what he needs out of me.
All of this reminds me of Scene 8 from Perestroika in which Joe admits "I don't know what will happen to me without you. Only you. Only you love me. Out of everyone in the world. I have done things, I'm ashamed. But I have changed. I don't know how yet, but...Please, please, don't leave me now." Thank you Tony Kushner
After a little while it became clear that she is a nun. Her name is Sister Helen. I was pretty surprised, but I was interested in talking more. She started to ask me a lot of questions and seemed to really care about what was going on in my life. Before long I had told her the reason why I was going home, some of the experiences (both good and bad) from my past, and a little about things from these past few weeks.
Interspersed in this was a lot of advice about how I should change myself. A lot of her advice was spiritually based, but just as much came from things that indicted a strong knowledge of popular society. She really seemed to empathize with a lot of the pressures. She advised me, in regards to that, that I shouldn't place all my fears of failure on myself. Instead, I should realize that things don't always work out in ways that will provide immediate gratification. However, if I keep trying to make everything turn out perfect it'll only increase the feelings of failure when things don't go as planned. On relationships she talked a lot about how she learned the hard way that the only way to change how people act towards you is to change yourself.
While I don't think that her advice was any sort of a golden key. It did leave me feeling very refreshed. Just to talk with someone who really appeared to understand. Someone who didn't seem to have an ounce of malice in her. Soon after I went to visit my brother. In some ways it seems that he reveres me the same way I looked up to Sister Helen.
My brother is unwilling, at this point, to talk to anyone. I was the first person he started to talk to. He didn't open up to what's going on in his life, but he did talk to me. I was able to get him to smile and laugh. Somehow, in front of him, I was able to stay strong and just enjoy my time with him. The visiting time ended at 6pm today because they have group meetings. I bought him a Mountain Dew and told him I would be back first thing tomorrow with a couple books he can read.
While I was strong in front of him it still broke my heart. When I got home I spent some time talking to my mom and stepdad about what my impression of the situation is. He won't talk to my mom; he just cries. I think that she was relieved that he would laugh a little with me.
I'm going to take Sister Helen's advice and remember that I can't change everything. I have to be willing to not try to force things. To not set up a situation where I try to force a certain result because I believe that that result equals achievement. I'll just take it once step at a time and let him show me what he needs out of me.
All of this reminds me of Scene 8 from Perestroika in which Joe admits "I don't know what will happen to me without you. Only you. Only you love me. Out of everyone in the world. I have done things, I'm ashamed. But I have changed. I don't know how yet, but...Please, please, don't leave me now." Thank you Tony Kushner
-x-
Keep us in your thoughts
I apologize if my blog has been a little lacking in anything serious lately. My lame attempt at trying to be funny is fueled by something that happened on Sunday night. My 19-year-old brother attempted to commit suicide. This is the second time he's tried (a couple years ago he purposely overdosed on sleep medication) to do this and probably the more gruesome attempt. Right now he's safe in a psychiatric hospital going through some counseling. I'm going to be making a trip to visit him. Trying to keep a smile on my face has been about all that I can muster. Anyhow, I know that some of you who read will take the time to keep him and my family in your thoughts.
-x-
The Art of Acting
Can you guess what's on my mind right now? If you guessed telling a story about an acting class, my friend Apu will make you a gigantic slurpee unless Bart has broken the machine again.
Anyhow, acting is on my mind. I think a lot of those in the acting profession.
Being an actor is one of the world's most stressful and underappreciated jobs. It's not just reading lines from a page; I have known what acting IS for a long time, but it was not until a college elective that I fully undestood what acting IS NOT.
I memorized the poem "Alone" by Edgar Allan Poe for my Art of Acting class. If you've never read "Alone," fear not for I shall supply it for you. (I hope you'll agree with me that it is an absolutely beautiful poem.) The poem follows:
My duty was to communicate clearly to the class the meaning of the poem, since that is what our professor instructed, is what acting is all about - the communication of thoughts and of feelings.
I thought, how tough can this be? "Alone" is my favorite poem.
No one could possibly understand the poem better than me, ergo wasn't I the perfect person to act out the poem for my Art of Acting class? After all, everybody says I'm a natural actor. (Of course, the only person who ever said that about me who actually was an actor was my friend, and since she failed two theater course, how credible of a source is she?)
How humbling it is to be soooo wrong. I swaggered on to the stage with all the bravado of a Burt Reynolds-wannabe.
I wanted to do it perfect the first time, but as soon as I looked into the audience composed only of my classmates, the character in my head disintegrated as did my confidence.
The first time around I whipped off the poem in my normal agitated speaking voice, which is 140 words per minute.
"Fromchildhood'shourIhavenotbeenasotherswere" Actually, I don't think I even used vowels; I simply jumped from consonant to consonant like the world's fastest cantor.
Sloooow iiit dooown, Cuuuuurtissss. Uuuuse yooouur noormaaaalll speeeaaking voooiiiccce.
"Whatareyoutalkingabout?That'showfastIactuallytalk."
The second time, I had sufficiently slowed the rate at which the words flowed from my mouth, but I hadn't spoken two or three lines before the instructor interrupted me again and said, "I don't believe you. Who are you? Do it again."
I knew who the character was that I had to be. I knew what I had to be. I even knew why I had to be that character.
I did not know how to be that character. The class ended without me reading the poem the way I think it is meant to be read. The instructor (Todd) gave me kudos for trying, which lifted my spirits a little, but ultimately I felt dejected.
I think I now know how to be that character as I recite the poem.
As I do it, what I have to imagine is that I have been doing some Curtisick thing to do, providing impetus to ask the most frequently asked question of me.
Can you guess what it is? That's right, "Why are you so weird?"
Instead of offering my usual response - "Because I find it more interesting than being a boring putz like yourself" - I leap straight away into Poe's "Alone."
I am distant.
Then as I ponder the isolation forced upon me by myself and others these past 25 tortuous years, I become irate, especially when considering the opulent beauty and pleasure everyone else seems to enjoy.
Acting.
Anyhow, acting is on my mind. I think a lot of those in the acting profession.
Being an actor is one of the world's most stressful and underappreciated jobs. It's not just reading lines from a page; I have known what acting IS for a long time, but it was not until a college elective that I fully undestood what acting IS NOT.
I memorized the poem "Alone" by Edgar Allan Poe for my Art of Acting class. If you've never read "Alone," fear not for I shall supply it for you. (I hope you'll agree with me that it is an absolutely beautiful poem.) The poem follows:
From childhood's hour, I have not been
As others were - I have not seen
As others saw - I could not bring
My passions from a common spring.
From the same source, I have not taken
My sorrow; I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone;
And all I lov'd I lov'd alone.
Then - in my childhood - in the dawn
Of a most stormy life - was drawn
From every depth of good and ill
The mystery which binds me still:
From the torrent, or the fountain,
From the red cliff of the mountain,
From the sun which 'round roll'd
In its autumn tint of gold -
From the lightning in the sky
As it passed me flying by -
From the thunder and the storm,
And the cloud that took the form
(When the rest of Heaven was blue)
Of a demon in my view.
My duty was to communicate clearly to the class the meaning of the poem, since that is what our professor instructed, is what acting is all about - the communication of thoughts and of feelings.
I thought, how tough can this be? "Alone" is my favorite poem.
No one could possibly understand the poem better than me, ergo wasn't I the perfect person to act out the poem for my Art of Acting class? After all, everybody says I'm a natural actor. (Of course, the only person who ever said that about me who actually was an actor was my friend, and since she failed two theater course, how credible of a source is she?)
How humbling it is to be soooo wrong. I swaggered on to the stage with all the bravado of a Burt Reynolds-wannabe.
I wanted to do it perfect the first time, but as soon as I looked into the audience composed only of my classmates, the character in my head disintegrated as did my confidence.
The first time around I whipped off the poem in my normal agitated speaking voice, which is 140 words per minute.
"Fromchildhood'shourIhavenotbeenasotherswere" Actually, I don't think I even used vowels; I simply jumped from consonant to consonant like the world's fastest cantor.
Sloooow iiit dooown, Cuuuuurtissss. Uuuuse yooouur noormaaaalll speeeaaking voooiiiccce.
"Whatareyoutalkingabout?That'showfastIactuallytalk."
The second time, I had sufficiently slowed the rate at which the words flowed from my mouth, but I hadn't spoken two or three lines before the instructor interrupted me again and said, "I don't believe you. Who are you? Do it again."
I knew who the character was that I had to be. I knew what I had to be. I even knew why I had to be that character.
I did not know how to be that character. The class ended without me reading the poem the way I think it is meant to be read. The instructor (Todd) gave me kudos for trying, which lifted my spirits a little, but ultimately I felt dejected.
I think I now know how to be that character as I recite the poem.
As I do it, what I have to imagine is that I have been doing some Curtisick thing to do, providing impetus to ask the most frequently asked question of me.
Can you guess what it is? That's right, "Why are you so weird?"
Instead of offering my usual response - "Because I find it more interesting than being a boring putz like yourself" - I leap straight away into Poe's "Alone."
I am distant.
Then as I ponder the isolation forced upon me by myself and others these past 25 tortuous years, I become irate, especially when considering the opulent beauty and pleasure everyone else seems to enjoy.
Acting.
-x-
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Tonight, Tonight: The Photos
I just got back from hanging out with Mandy, and I've got some photos. I'll link to them as they are a little suggestive. Photos might not be work friendly.
-x-
What do you say, Curtis?
For some reason I felt like filling this out.
THINGS YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
-Something important on your desk: scissors
-When you sleep you wear: boxers
-If you could afford it at the moment, you would buy: a house.
-Something you don't have a lot of: shoes, but I'm not a big fan.
-If your house was burning and you could only save 3 items what would they be: kitty, whiskey, and I guess my box of photos.
MORALS
-If there were no side effects, you would enjoy being addicted to: that is a weird question. I don't want to be addicted to anything. But I wouldn't mind being able to do eat dozens and dozens of cookies without anything happening. Cookie side-effects are ruthless.
-A time when you purposely hurt someone emotionally: I guess that it was probably a girl named Rebekah who sort of killed me emotionally too.
-A time you accidentally hurt someone emotionally: I'm not sure, but I would guess it's happened a couple times in the past year. I do try to be extremely careful with other's feelings.
-One person you have killed in your thoughts: At various times I've done that to my father.
FRIENDS:
-Three traits you look for in a friend: funny, interesting, and genuine.
-Who makes you laugh most often: Cody
-A friend who you can tell anything: Elizabeth
-A friend you can go to for advice: I usually don't really need other people's advice
-The best piece of advice you had been given: My friend Susan once told me to "take the pain"
-Two closest friends: Ben and Elizabeth
-The friend who uses most of your energy: My former roommate, BJ.
EGO
-Your 3 best qualities: I'm polite, I'm pretty smart, and I'm not annoying
-Your 3 worst qualities: I'm unpredictable, jealous, and socially awkward.
-Describe your Ideal self: Confident, satisfied, and never lonely.
-You are embarrassed when: I say something stupid in front of a bunch of people, but I try to be careful about this
-The greatest physical pain you ever endured: I was in a pretty bad car wreck that left me in a coma for 10 days.
-The greatest emotional pain you ever endured: The nightmare that became Heidi and I.
-Moment you are most ashamed of: Last summer in Ireland when I refused to follow the advice of a few of my friends at the pub.
-Your best physical feature: Having red hair is great.
-Who/What makes you happy: Getting emails from friends.
-Who/what makes you sad: My dad
EMOTIONS
-Emotion you hide most: Self loathing
-The emotion you tend to experience most: Melancholy
-The emotion you are feeling most lately: Boredom
-You have a huge amount of guilt regarding: My dependence on others.
-When you are angry you need: To go to a park and think.
-When you are sentimental you need: To lie in bed and stare at nothing
-When you are in love you need: To feel wanted.
MEMORIES
-One of your most peaceful memories: Going fishing with my grandfather.
-One of your most tragic memories: One of my friends in college died one evening when he fell four stories because of ice.
-One of your angriest memories: Waiting hours and hours for my absent dad to come and take me and my siblings out for dinner.
-A memory that makes you laugh: When my friend Sarah and I went out to the park on newly fallen snow and jumped out of the swings to land in drifts of snow.
-A memory that makes you happy: The first time I kissed Heidi.
-Something someone can say or do that you find extremely attractive: When a girl makes eyes and then gives a little smile.
-Something someone can say or do that you find unattractive: Yelling at people.
-Two things appealing about people: Neat hair and clothing.
-A personality trait you find appealing: generosity
-Your secret passion: Sending my friends little gifts when they don't expect it.
-What you enjoy most about having a committed relationship: Feeling worthy of attention
FINALLY
-If you had more time alone you would: Sleep.
-If you had more patience you would: Make people happier.
-If you could change one thing about your physical appearance what would it be: I wouldn't mind being a little taller
-If you had no commitments what would you be doing: Sleeping.
-If you could have one super power what would it be: The ability to stop time.
-If you could start all over....: I would get lost trust in my dad sooner so that I wouldn't have this weird attachment issue with friends.
THINGS YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT
-Something important on your desk: scissors
-When you sleep you wear: boxers
-If you could afford it at the moment, you would buy: a house.
-Something you don't have a lot of: shoes, but I'm not a big fan.
-If your house was burning and you could only save 3 items what would they be: kitty, whiskey, and I guess my box of photos.
MORALS
-If there were no side effects, you would enjoy being addicted to: that is a weird question. I don't want to be addicted to anything. But I wouldn't mind being able to do eat dozens and dozens of cookies without anything happening. Cookie side-effects are ruthless.
-A time when you purposely hurt someone emotionally: I guess that it was probably a girl named Rebekah who sort of killed me emotionally too.
-A time you accidentally hurt someone emotionally: I'm not sure, but I would guess it's happened a couple times in the past year. I do try to be extremely careful with other's feelings.
-One person you have killed in your thoughts: At various times I've done that to my father.
FRIENDS:
-Three traits you look for in a friend: funny, interesting, and genuine.
-Who makes you laugh most often: Cody
-A friend who you can tell anything: Elizabeth
-A friend you can go to for advice: I usually don't really need other people's advice
-The best piece of advice you had been given: My friend Susan once told me to "take the pain"
-Two closest friends: Ben and Elizabeth
-The friend who uses most of your energy: My former roommate, BJ.
EGO
-Your 3 best qualities: I'm polite, I'm pretty smart, and I'm not annoying
-Your 3 worst qualities: I'm unpredictable, jealous, and socially awkward.
-Describe your Ideal self: Confident, satisfied, and never lonely.
-You are embarrassed when: I say something stupid in front of a bunch of people, but I try to be careful about this
-The greatest physical pain you ever endured: I was in a pretty bad car wreck that left me in a coma for 10 days.
-The greatest emotional pain you ever endured: The nightmare that became Heidi and I.
-Moment you are most ashamed of: Last summer in Ireland when I refused to follow the advice of a few of my friends at the pub.
-Your best physical feature: Having red hair is great.
-Who/What makes you happy: Getting emails from friends.
-Who/what makes you sad: My dad
EMOTIONS
-Emotion you hide most: Self loathing
-The emotion you tend to experience most: Melancholy
-The emotion you are feeling most lately: Boredom
-You have a huge amount of guilt regarding: My dependence on others.
-When you are angry you need: To go to a park and think.
-When you are sentimental you need: To lie in bed and stare at nothing
-When you are in love you need: To feel wanted.
MEMORIES
-One of your most peaceful memories: Going fishing with my grandfather.
-One of your most tragic memories: One of my friends in college died one evening when he fell four stories because of ice.
-One of your angriest memories: Waiting hours and hours for my absent dad to come and take me and my siblings out for dinner.
-A memory that makes you laugh: When my friend Sarah and I went out to the park on newly fallen snow and jumped out of the swings to land in drifts of snow.
-A memory that makes you happy: The first time I kissed Heidi.
-Something someone can say or do that you find extremely attractive: When a girl makes eyes and then gives a little smile.
-Something someone can say or do that you find unattractive: Yelling at people.
-Two things appealing about people: Neat hair and clothing.
-A personality trait you find appealing: generosity
-Your secret passion: Sending my friends little gifts when they don't expect it.
-What you enjoy most about having a committed relationship: Feeling worthy of attention
FINALLY
-If you had more time alone you would: Sleep.
-If you had more patience you would: Make people happier.
-If you could change one thing about your physical appearance what would it be: I wouldn't mind being a little taller
-If you had no commitments what would you be doing: Sleeping.
-If you could have one super power what would it be: The ability to stop time.
-If you could start all over....: I would get lost trust in my dad sooner so that I wouldn't have this weird attachment issue with friends.
-x-
Thank you Scarface
Rumor has it that Quincy Carter was cut from the Cowboys due to cocaine use. At this point the reason is only gossip, while it is fact he has been cut.
-x-
Tonight, Tonight
It looks like I'll actually be making a good meal at Mandy's apartment this evening. There will be a lot of wine, a good meal, a movie, and a digital camera. As she has granted permission, there will be photos posted.
-x-
On Certainty
Today I was thinking about some of the Greek myths (actually, from Mary Zimmerman's Metamorphoses) and came to the conclusion that I've never really lived well in the moment. This is why I've never really understood the Greek myth with Orpheus and his wife. He is allowed to lead his kidnapped wife out of Hades, on condition that he not turn around to make sure she's following him.
The condition is trust. The human flaw is suspicion. Orpheus believes he's being tricked. He falls prey to his suspicions and sends his wife back to the underworld forever.
That has never made any practical sense to me. I suppose that it's supposed to indicate something essential about human beings, and yet, I would never have turned around. The scenario doesn't even tempt me.
It isn't because I'm too trusting. No, it is because I despise certainty.
The condition is trust. The human flaw is suspicion. Orpheus believes he's being tricked. He falls prey to his suspicions and sends his wife back to the underworld forever.
That has never made any practical sense to me. I suppose that it's supposed to indicate something essential about human beings, and yet, I would never have turned around. The scenario doesn't even tempt me.
It isn't because I'm too trusting. No, it is because I despise certainty.
-x-
Watch what you eat
I now know Hell.
I thought before I knew Hell, but it is only at this exact moment that I am writing this that I truly know the manyfold lattice-work of torment that is Hell, originating in my intestinal tract and extending outward to the far reaches of my conciousness. Not even my pineal gland has been spared by the Evil juices flowing around inside my body.
You're probably asking yourself, "What has Curtis done to himself this time? Too much partying last night?" No, it's nothing that simple. If I had merely imbibed too much liquor, I would understand the results and be able to react rationally to them thereby relieving my discomfort. No, I have a far more devious demon ravaging my poor sanity and weakening my body is Pizza Hut's Old Sicillian Pizza (PHSP).
Don't laugh. Don't you laugh.
Last night for dinner, I ate 3/4 of one of those nasty little creatures, and I have been paying for it ever since. How could I, homing beacon of purity that I am, have been deceived into devouring so much Evil?
I'll tell you, it tricked me into thinking it tasted good. I don't know how it did it, and I intend to conduct future experiments involving various chemicals to discover its chemical makeup; however, I would not be at all surprised if goat's blood or bat wing or eye of newt were in the recipe.
Fast am I into my 11th hour enduring the onslaught of pain brought on by PHSP. At first, I was only experiencing the usual distress experienced after overeating: my stomach was full, causing my abdomen to appear a little distended. I patted my belly and asked of it, "Did you enjoy that?" I was downstairs in clinic office at the time, chatting with my friend Jamie.
Even though most men talk to their various body parts, Jamie found it odd that I would say anything to my belly, prompting her to say one of the most frequently repeated phrases in the world, "Curtis, you're crazy." (Although it doesn't make a bit of difference, I responded, "Crazy like a fox!!!")
Why I was eating pizza for the third day in a row, I don't know. I was hungry. It was available. I watched a little TV with my friends. At 9 p.m., I went home and called some folks. At 10 p.m., I drove over to the independent video store and dropped off a video. It was about this time that I noticed the first rumblings, but I paid them no mind.
I went to the grocery store to prepare for a healthy meal tomorrow with a friend. As I was checking out the woman at the register said, "You don't look all that well. Are you feeling fine?"
I reassured her, "It's nothing. Ate a little too much pizza. Bit of indigestion."
Shortly after 11 p.m., I came home and gave said friend a call to see how she was doing. No one answered, so I figured I called too late and decided to go to bed. About this time, my digestive system had started expressing its unappreciative disposition for the burden of having to break down the current of mountain of faux-Palermitan pie (still moving through my small intestine) into usable nutrients by transmitting fairly strong somatic signals to the culpable body parts.
Ever seen Evil Dead 2? Well, that was 6 hours ago. Since then, I have finished a bottle of Pepto-Bismol, chewed my weight in cherry-flavored Rolaids and milked the neighbor's cow bone dry. I next intend to raid the Mrs. Baird's bread factory.
I guess it was around 4 a.m. this morning that I shouted, "I am going to kill Cody." You see, Cody is the little devil who suggested ordering the pizza.
Cody: "Curtis, I'm dying for this Sicillian pizza. You want in?"
Curtis: "Sure."
Bad move on my part, and I knew it; maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. Unless it's bought in Sicily, there is no such thing as Sicillian pizza. I figured the thing was from some little pizzaria that might have a fifth or sixth generation connection to some place in Italy.
How could I go wrong, Italy just beat American in an exhibition basketball game. I might as well show my support for puting Tim Duncan's ego in check, right?
I asked Cody where the said pizza was ordered? As soon as the incriminating words "Shut up, Pizza Hut is good" left Cody's mouth, I should have been on the phone with the nearest mental hospital to have that sick boy put away where he can do no more harm to himself or anyone else.
Curtis: "Cody, that pizza came out like five years ago. Do they still sell it?"
Cody: "Curtis, it's great, I've ordered us two."
I'm a paisano from Wichita (incidentally the birthplace of Pizza Hut) so I'm sorry if my expectations for pizza are a little high, but half a day's worth of indigestion is completely ridiculous. I should be sleeping right now, but I can't because of that diabolic dish. I send you a warning of extreme caution: do not use Pizza Hut's Sicillian Pizza for anything other than fish bait unless you have innards made of vulcanized rubber
I thought before I knew Hell, but it is only at this exact moment that I am writing this that I truly know the manyfold lattice-work of torment that is Hell, originating in my intestinal tract and extending outward to the far reaches of my conciousness. Not even my pineal gland has been spared by the Evil juices flowing around inside my body.
You're probably asking yourself, "What has Curtis done to himself this time? Too much partying last night?" No, it's nothing that simple. If I had merely imbibed too much liquor, I would understand the results and be able to react rationally to them thereby relieving my discomfort. No, I have a far more devious demon ravaging my poor sanity and weakening my body is Pizza Hut's Old Sicillian Pizza (PHSP).
Don't laugh. Don't you laugh.
Last night for dinner, I ate 3/4 of one of those nasty little creatures, and I have been paying for it ever since. How could I, homing beacon of purity that I am, have been deceived into devouring so much Evil?
I'll tell you, it tricked me into thinking it tasted good. I don't know how it did it, and I intend to conduct future experiments involving various chemicals to discover its chemical makeup; however, I would not be at all surprised if goat's blood or bat wing or eye of newt were in the recipe.
Fast am I into my 11th hour enduring the onslaught of pain brought on by PHSP. At first, I was only experiencing the usual distress experienced after overeating: my stomach was full, causing my abdomen to appear a little distended. I patted my belly and asked of it, "Did you enjoy that?" I was downstairs in clinic office at the time, chatting with my friend Jamie.
Even though most men talk to their various body parts, Jamie found it odd that I would say anything to my belly, prompting her to say one of the most frequently repeated phrases in the world, "Curtis, you're crazy." (Although it doesn't make a bit of difference, I responded, "Crazy like a fox!!!")
Why I was eating pizza for the third day in a row, I don't know. I was hungry. It was available. I watched a little TV with my friends. At 9 p.m., I went home and called some folks. At 10 p.m., I drove over to the independent video store and dropped off a video. It was about this time that I noticed the first rumblings, but I paid them no mind.
I went to the grocery store to prepare for a healthy meal tomorrow with a friend. As I was checking out the woman at the register said, "You don't look all that well. Are you feeling fine?"
I reassured her, "It's nothing. Ate a little too much pizza. Bit of indigestion."
Shortly after 11 p.m., I came home and gave said friend a call to see how she was doing. No one answered, so I figured I called too late and decided to go to bed. About this time, my digestive system had started expressing its unappreciative disposition for the burden of having to break down the current of mountain of faux-Palermitan pie (still moving through my small intestine) into usable nutrients by transmitting fairly strong somatic signals to the culpable body parts.
Ever seen Evil Dead 2? Well, that was 6 hours ago. Since then, I have finished a bottle of Pepto-Bismol, chewed my weight in cherry-flavored Rolaids and milked the neighbor's cow bone dry. I next intend to raid the Mrs. Baird's bread factory.
I guess it was around 4 a.m. this morning that I shouted, "I am going to kill Cody." You see, Cody is the little devil who suggested ordering the pizza.
Cody: "Curtis, I'm dying for this Sicillian pizza. You want in?"
Curtis: "Sure."
Bad move on my part, and I knew it; maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. Unless it's bought in Sicily, there is no such thing as Sicillian pizza. I figured the thing was from some little pizzaria that might have a fifth or sixth generation connection to some place in Italy.
How could I go wrong, Italy just beat American in an exhibition basketball game. I might as well show my support for puting Tim Duncan's ego in check, right?
I asked Cody where the said pizza was ordered? As soon as the incriminating words "Shut up, Pizza Hut is good" left Cody's mouth, I should have been on the phone with the nearest mental hospital to have that sick boy put away where he can do no more harm to himself or anyone else.
Curtis: "Cody, that pizza came out like five years ago. Do they still sell it?"
Cody: "Curtis, it's great, I've ordered us two."
I'm a paisano from Wichita (incidentally the birthplace of Pizza Hut) so I'm sorry if my expectations for pizza are a little high, but half a day's worth of indigestion is completely ridiculous. I should be sleeping right now, but I can't because of that diabolic dish. I send you a warning of extreme caution: do not use Pizza Hut's Sicillian Pizza for anything other than fish bait unless you have innards made of vulcanized rubber
-x-
The Quiet Town of Rumpus: Episode #3
[Episode 2 - The Body is here]
Deputy Martin Mundle didn't stop running after exiting Simpson's Pharmacy and Hardware (with the napkin still tucked into his shirt collar) until he had reached the Sheriff's office six blocks down from Simpson's on Main Street Avenue, the main street in Rumpus.
Martin Mundle was a big man (6 foot 7 inches, 259 pounds). Only the foolish did not scurry from the path of the juggernaut Martin Mundle - not that he was a man known for cruelty, but he was a notoriously clumsy oaf.
If one were to map the winding routes Martin Mundle walked each day and were to differentiate steps with the right foot in red, steps with the left in blue, and places were he bumped into someone or something in green, the green substance used (e.g., ink, construction paper, pushpins, etc.) would deplete quicker than either the red or blue demarcation medium. On the way to see his daddy, Sheriff Joseph Mundle, he made physical contact with no less than 23 obstacles, (or 25 if you count his stepping on Joseph Mundle's toes twice).
"DAMmit, Marty." Joseph Mundle was the only person since Mama Mundle's passing that gets away with calling him Marty. "Don't step on my frickin' toes. An' pull that frickin' napkin out of yer frickin' collar. Makes you look like a frickin' idiot. Now what in tarnation has gotten you all riled up? An' don't tell me nuthin' about color of Melinda Jorgensen's nails, 'cause you know I don't give a rat's patoot."
"Shucks, Daddy, this has nuthin' to do wi' that. You know that TV reporter, DiDi Stuart? A couple of boys found 'er dead body out by Lock Lake on the Ole Walsh Place."
"Good job, Marty, where the rascals now? ... You done left 'em back at Simpson's, didn't you? Hadn't you ever heard of bringin' somebody in fer questionin'? Well, it's not worth worryin' about now. Let's go have them boys take us on over there. Wait ... did anyone other than you overhear them whipper snappers mention DiDi Stuart?"
"Come to thank of it, Daddy, Samantha Rogers-Flavor was there, too. She even asked them a few thangs about ..."
"Aw, you moron, there's no use lookin' fer the boys over at Simpson's. Don't you know Samantha Flavor is the frickin' star reporter fer The Rumpus Recorder? Sam's prob'ly already get them over at the Lake. Come on, get in the frickin' truck."
By the time Sheriff Mundle and his son Deputy Mundle arrived at the scene, Samantha Rogers-Flavor, the boys who discovered the body (Wally Hogarth, Erik Derrik Brawn III, Mark Sandlewood) and a photographer (Jimmy Flavor, editor of The Recorder) were already there. "Jimmy, didn't you tell yer dammed wife that this sort of thang might be considered meddlin' wi' the scene of a crime? An' that it is an offense punishable by law?"
"I know, Sheriff," Jimmy said, trying to apologize for his wife. "But you know how Sam gets. Once she gets it in her mind that she has a job to do, there is no stopping her."
"Quit, your yappin,' Jimbo," Samantha Rogers-Flavor said. "We have a paper to put out. Get some photos from over here." Mrs. Rogers-Flavor then motioned her husband Mr. Flavor where to stand. Then she turned to Sheriff Mundle. "Don't bother callin' the coroner, Joe. I already phoned Bubba to come 'n' pick up the boys."
Bubba, (as Wally's father Gerald Hogarth Jr., was affectionately known), served double duty as the Glenedin County coroner and the manager of the Hogarth Funeral Home, owned by Erik Derrik Brawn Sr., as were all of the other businesses in Rumpus, (with the exception of the Rumpust Supper Club, which was owned by Marjory "Madge" Harshwood, descendent of Richard Otis Rumpuss, the founder of Rumpus and its most illustrious benefactor).
"By the way, Sheriff," Samantha Rogers-Flavor said. "What is your take on the murder of broadcast journalist DiDi Stuart? Any suspects yet?"
"No comment, Samantha. An' we haven't even confirmed that she was murdered yet."
"Of course, she could have fired the gun at her neck, leaving behind a bullet hole almost two centimeters in diameter, 'n' then hid the gun so that everybody would just think she was murdered. That DiDi really was clever. Do you have any other non-comments?"
"NO, Samantha," the sheriff said, trying to keeping calm. "I have NOT made any conclusions on ANYthang yet as I have NOT EVEN EXAMINED THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. You may be a suspect if I can prove you were tampering wit' evidence. Now would you 'n' your husband PLEASE leave the premises so that I may do MY JOB."
"I see," Samantha Rogers-Flavor mumbled as she hurriedly jotted notes in her spiral. "Sheriff losing effectiveness as officer of the law," and she followed her husband back to their vehicle.
"An' take the children wit' you, Sam," the sheriff scolded. "This is hardly an appropriate envi-r'nment fer boys so young."
Sheriff Mundle then walked over to DiDi Stuart's body and began his survey of the crime scene.
Deputy Martin Mundle didn't stop running after exiting Simpson's Pharmacy and Hardware (with the napkin still tucked into his shirt collar) until he had reached the Sheriff's office six blocks down from Simpson's on Main Street Avenue, the main street in Rumpus.
Martin Mundle was a big man (6 foot 7 inches, 259 pounds). Only the foolish did not scurry from the path of the juggernaut Martin Mundle - not that he was a man known for cruelty, but he was a notoriously clumsy oaf.
If one were to map the winding routes Martin Mundle walked each day and were to differentiate steps with the right foot in red, steps with the left in blue, and places were he bumped into someone or something in green, the green substance used (e.g., ink, construction paper, pushpins, etc.) would deplete quicker than either the red or blue demarcation medium. On the way to see his daddy, Sheriff Joseph Mundle, he made physical contact with no less than 23 obstacles, (or 25 if you count his stepping on Joseph Mundle's toes twice).
"DAMmit, Marty." Joseph Mundle was the only person since Mama Mundle's passing that gets away with calling him Marty. "Don't step on my frickin' toes. An' pull that frickin' napkin out of yer frickin' collar. Makes you look like a frickin' idiot. Now what in tarnation has gotten you all riled up? An' don't tell me nuthin' about color of Melinda Jorgensen's nails, 'cause you know I don't give a rat's patoot."
"Shucks, Daddy, this has nuthin' to do wi' that. You know that TV reporter, DiDi Stuart? A couple of boys found 'er dead body out by Lock Lake on the Ole Walsh Place."
"Good job, Marty, where the rascals now? ... You done left 'em back at Simpson's, didn't you? Hadn't you ever heard of bringin' somebody in fer questionin'? Well, it's not worth worryin' about now. Let's go have them boys take us on over there. Wait ... did anyone other than you overhear them whipper snappers mention DiDi Stuart?"
"Come to thank of it, Daddy, Samantha Rogers-Flavor was there, too. She even asked them a few thangs about ..."
"Aw, you moron, there's no use lookin' fer the boys over at Simpson's. Don't you know Samantha Flavor is the frickin' star reporter fer The Rumpus Recorder? Sam's prob'ly already get them over at the Lake. Come on, get in the frickin' truck."
By the time Sheriff Mundle and his son Deputy Mundle arrived at the scene, Samantha Rogers-Flavor, the boys who discovered the body (Wally Hogarth, Erik Derrik Brawn III, Mark Sandlewood) and a photographer (Jimmy Flavor, editor of The Recorder) were already there. "Jimmy, didn't you tell yer dammed wife that this sort of thang might be considered meddlin' wi' the scene of a crime? An' that it is an offense punishable by law?"
"I know, Sheriff," Jimmy said, trying to apologize for his wife. "But you know how Sam gets. Once she gets it in her mind that she has a job to do, there is no stopping her."
"Quit, your yappin,' Jimbo," Samantha Rogers-Flavor said. "We have a paper to put out. Get some photos from over here." Mrs. Rogers-Flavor then motioned her husband Mr. Flavor where to stand. Then she turned to Sheriff Mundle. "Don't bother callin' the coroner, Joe. I already phoned Bubba to come 'n' pick up the boys."
Bubba, (as Wally's father Gerald Hogarth Jr., was affectionately known), served double duty as the Glenedin County coroner and the manager of the Hogarth Funeral Home, owned by Erik Derrik Brawn Sr., as were all of the other businesses in Rumpus, (with the exception of the Rumpust Supper Club, which was owned by Marjory "Madge" Harshwood, descendent of Richard Otis Rumpuss, the founder of Rumpus and its most illustrious benefactor).
"By the way, Sheriff," Samantha Rogers-Flavor said. "What is your take on the murder of broadcast journalist DiDi Stuart? Any suspects yet?"
"No comment, Samantha. An' we haven't even confirmed that she was murdered yet."
"Of course, she could have fired the gun at her neck, leaving behind a bullet hole almost two centimeters in diameter, 'n' then hid the gun so that everybody would just think she was murdered. That DiDi really was clever. Do you have any other non-comments?"
"NO, Samantha," the sheriff said, trying to keeping calm. "I have NOT made any conclusions on ANYthang yet as I have NOT EVEN EXAMINED THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. You may be a suspect if I can prove you were tampering wit' evidence. Now would you 'n' your husband PLEASE leave the premises so that I may do MY JOB."
"I see," Samantha Rogers-Flavor mumbled as she hurriedly jotted notes in her spiral. "Sheriff losing effectiveness as officer of the law," and she followed her husband back to their vehicle.
"An' take the children wit' you, Sam," the sheriff scolded. "This is hardly an appropriate envi-r'nment fer boys so young."
Sheriff Mundle then walked over to DiDi Stuart's body and began his survey of the crime scene.
-x-
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
The Unapproaching Type
This coffee shop story is an excellent example of why I don't approach females when I'm at the bookstore, grocery store, or my favorite bar.
On the rare occasion that I notice a girl looking my way or smiling at me I drop Guinness all over the floor and run and hide. If I were to approach, I'm sure that I would say something along the lines of, "Gosh you're puuuurty." Then, if that wasn't enough to scare her, I would say something equally creepy.
Let's just call it, "not having game."
On the rare occasion that I notice a girl looking my way or smiling at me I drop Guinness all over the floor and run and hide. If I were to approach, I'm sure that I would say something along the lines of, "Gosh you're puuuurty." Then, if that wasn't enough to scare her, I would say something equally creepy.
Let's just call it, "not having game."
-x-
More About Me
After a couple beers I usually begin to feel like I should share some more about myself. People know that I'm in law school, I run, and I enjoy Mexican food. Beyond that is there really anything more that you know? I think not. I got the grand idea of doing that 100 Things that other blogs did, but I remembered I'm lazy. Then I thought about answering questions about difficult things, but I neither own a book of questions, nor am I creative enough to make up my own. That leaves me with writing a little bit.
Since many of you might not know who I am, you probably would like to know more about me -- to see if we share anything in common. I clipped the following quote, (which I've taken the liberty to translate from the original German), from an article that appeared in the Bavarian Illuminati magazine Verwirrung:
"Very little reliable information can be gathered on the enigma that is Curtis. Depending upon who one talks to, Curtis has been a member of the human species for 25 years or 4000."
My birthdate is February 23, 1979 (thank you Smashing Pumpkins). These rumors about me being 4000 years old or being the love child of Richard Nixon and Timothy Leary are fallacious and just plain silly. My father, also Curtis, grew up on a dairy farm in western Kentucky and currently practices driving trucks around Wichita, Kansas. My mother Jamie, a fifth generation Wichitan, is working on a successful hostile takeover of my grandmother business; it will happen soon.
I'm a normal guy just like any of your brothers or uncles, except I can breathe fire and telekinetically explode dense objects. Oh, I also possess three additional sensory capabilities, exlpaining why my gestation period was two months longer than the average human infant's time in the womb. You see, more highly evolved species É never mind.
The Simpsons and Seinfeld are my favorite television programs, but I do not have my TV wired to receive either aired or cable programs. If any of you would like to host me in the viewing of the last episode(s), I would be forever grateful, and I will bring beer.
At my home, I keep a modest collection of videos and CDs representing a small slice of my favorite films and albums. The fourth Led Zeppelin is, in my opinion, the greatest rock 'n' roll effort of all time. Your opinion may differ from my own. You'd be wrong, but it's your right to disagree nonetheless. (At one time I hosted a radio show where I once had a back-to-back Hanson/Osmond Brothers Salute. I was branded a hero in the local market).
I prefer red Skittles to all other colors, and I never eat black jelly beans lest the voodoo witch doctor finally steal my soul with her demon licorice. By that same token, I never drink soft drinks through straws; I never lay my hat on the bed; and I try very hard not to gaze into the mirror too long when drunk, but sometimes this cannot be helped.
If I were to be an animal, I would like to be a dolphin. What a life. Swimming with your friends. Talking to beings from other planets. Beating the crap out of a few bloodthirsty sharks before getting caught in some fisherman's net and being eaten by a bottled blonge girl after ordering a tuna sandwich at Subway. I can't think of many better ways to go.
I do hope this helps.
Since many of you might not know who I am, you probably would like to know more about me -- to see if we share anything in common. I clipped the following quote, (which I've taken the liberty to translate from the original German), from an article that appeared in the Bavarian Illuminati magazine Verwirrung:
"Very little reliable information can be gathered on the enigma that is Curtis. Depending upon who one talks to, Curtis has been a member of the human species for 25 years or 4000."
My birthdate is February 23, 1979 (thank you Smashing Pumpkins). These rumors about me being 4000 years old or being the love child of Richard Nixon and Timothy Leary are fallacious and just plain silly. My father, also Curtis, grew up on a dairy farm in western Kentucky and currently practices driving trucks around Wichita, Kansas. My mother Jamie, a fifth generation Wichitan, is working on a successful hostile takeover of my grandmother business; it will happen soon.
I'm a normal guy just like any of your brothers or uncles, except I can breathe fire and telekinetically explode dense objects. Oh, I also possess three additional sensory capabilities, exlpaining why my gestation period was two months longer than the average human infant's time in the womb. You see, more highly evolved species É never mind.
The Simpsons and Seinfeld are my favorite television programs, but I do not have my TV wired to receive either aired or cable programs. If any of you would like to host me in the viewing of the last episode(s), I would be forever grateful, and I will bring beer.
At my home, I keep a modest collection of videos and CDs representing a small slice of my favorite films and albums. The fourth Led Zeppelin is, in my opinion, the greatest rock 'n' roll effort of all time. Your opinion may differ from my own. You'd be wrong, but it's your right to disagree nonetheless. (At one time I hosted a radio show where I once had a back-to-back Hanson/Osmond Brothers Salute. I was branded a hero in the local market).
I prefer red Skittles to all other colors, and I never eat black jelly beans lest the voodoo witch doctor finally steal my soul with her demon licorice. By that same token, I never drink soft drinks through straws; I never lay my hat on the bed; and I try very hard not to gaze into the mirror too long when drunk, but sometimes this cannot be helped.
If I were to be an animal, I would like to be a dolphin. What a life. Swimming with your friends. Talking to beings from other planets. Beating the crap out of a few bloodthirsty sharks before getting caught in some fisherman's net and being eaten by a bottled blonge girl after ordering a tuna sandwich at Subway. I can't think of many better ways to go.
I do hope this helps.
-x-
Monday, August 02, 2004
Another reason to use iTunes (alternatively: my attempt to use every song from a Moody Blues album)
The iTunes Music Store has the DNC's speeches available as audiobooks for free on their Music Store.
You can get the daily speeches or you can download the individual speeches given by Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Edwards, and John Kerry.
Now even you can archive the 2004 DNC to save for your children's children's children...while we're watching and waiting for the RNC so that we can go beyond and see this president go out and in with Kerry so we can go down the eternity road and see that the sun is still shining.
You can get the daily speeches or you can download the individual speeches given by Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Edwards, and John Kerry.
Now even you can archive the 2004 DNC to save for your children's children's children...while we're watching and waiting for the RNC so that we can go beyond and see this president go out and in with Kerry so we can go down the eternity road and see that the sun is still shining.
-x-
No, I wasn't drunk, but I did like her
This afternoon I noticed an attractive girl going up and down the aisles at the grocery store. I don't like to play the following game, so I went about my business but kept my eye open for her. Soon I had my Klondike Bars, milk, bread, lunch meat, and other sundries that were necessary, but I didn't want to take off quite yet.
I walked over to the beer fridges and saw that Guinness draught was on sale, so I grabbed a six pack. My left my cart a few steps away, the beer was an afterthought, so I was happily walking back when all of a sudden there was a crash. Bottles were flying across the waxed floor. Beer (oh, the humanity!) was puddling all over the floor. I was staring at the contaminated mess when the attractive girl appeared from another aisle (maybe sports drinks?) noticing the same mess. She looked at it and then back at me and smiled. Sheepishly I returned the smile, wishing that I could tell her that it was the fault of a torn bottom of the six-pack.
Unfortunately, I couldn't talk to her as nobody takes you seriously when you've just wasted six bottles of beer. The embarrassment was akin to what I felt when I talked to a girl at a party for twenty minutes with my fly unzipped all the while. Was she smiling because she liked me or because I was an idiot?
I walked over to the beer fridges and saw that Guinness draught was on sale, so I grabbed a six pack. My left my cart a few steps away, the beer was an afterthought, so I was happily walking back when all of a sudden there was a crash. Bottles were flying across the waxed floor. Beer (oh, the humanity!) was puddling all over the floor. I was staring at the contaminated mess when the attractive girl appeared from another aisle (maybe sports drinks?) noticing the same mess. She looked at it and then back at me and smiled. Sheepishly I returned the smile, wishing that I could tell her that it was the fault of a torn bottom of the six-pack.
Unfortunately, I couldn't talk to her as nobody takes you seriously when you've just wasted six bottles of beer. The embarrassment was akin to what I felt when I talked to a girl at a party for twenty minutes with my fly unzipped all the while. Was she smiling because she liked me or because I was an idiot?
-x-
The Quiet Town of Rumpus: Episode #2 - The Body
[Link to the previous episode
"Yep, she's dead - dead as a doornail." Mark's use of the euphemism, although insensitive, was perfectly true; he verified his statement by poking the woman's body with the end of his fishing pole. Mark and two of his peers, Wally and Erik, had happened upon the corpse of well-known TV news reporter DiDi Stuart while walking across old Mr. Walsh's farm to their favorite fishing spot in Lock Lake on the outskirts of Rumpus.
DiDi's neck was bloody, and the blood's source seemed to have been a quarter-inch, dark red hole. It was 9:15 a.m. Eight months out of the year, the boys would have been in school at that time, but the date was Sept. 13, 1996. Summer vacation did not explain their truancy. The boys were not in school, as it was Friday the 13th, a particularly unlucky day to be in school, a day on which no one would question a child's absence from school. In the past four years, five Rumpus Elementary School students, who decided not to play hooky on Friday the 13th, never came home from school. The mysteries surrounding their disappearances continue to this day.
"Wow," Wally said. "I've never seen a dead person before." This was a surprising admission considering that Wally's father was the town mortician and the county coroner, and Erik could not let this illogical statement slide by without comment.
"Wally, your father runs the funeral home. You've never visited him on the job?"
"No, come to think of it. I haven't, and it's not like he brings his work home with him."
"Hmmmm." Mark and Erik pondered the stunning news before the three continued walking on to their fishing hole.
Three hours later, as they passed the body with a fresh catch of three small mouth bass and a perch, the boys reminded each other to tell somebody that they had happened upon the late DiDi Stuart.
"Wally, Erik," Mark said.
"Yes, Mark," Wally and Erik said in unison.
"We have to remember to tell someone that we found DiDi Stuart's dead body."
"I agree."
"I do, too."
On the way back into town, Wally, Erik and Mark pondered the blue sky, the best way to prevent dogs from getting fleas and the likelihood of a recurring black hole in the Rumpus Elementary School.
"That would help make sense of the unexplained disappearance of Walter and those other missing kids," Erik said.
"But how do you explain the 'quote' coincidence of all of the disappearances happening on Friday the 13th?" Mark said. "I think there's a serial killer on the loose in our grade school."
"Dude," Wally said, setting the proper tone. "Too much thinking. Need chocolate milkshake."
The boys had arrived in downtown Rumpus right outside Simpson's Rumpus Pharmacy and Hardware, known throughout Gleneden County as serving the world's best malts and milkshakes for less than $2.
Concurrence that the time for lunch and milkshakes was at hand having been reached, the boys all stepped into Simpson's.
They passed the hair care products on the left and the power tools on the right, straight to the counter where Martin Mundle and Samantha Rogers-Flavor were already seated.
The boys each ordered chili dogs and cherry Cokes. They split an order of cheese fries. As they were about to order their shakes (except Mark, as he was trying to lose weight), Erik said to his buddies, "Who do you think we should tell about DiDi Stuart?"
Overhearing the name of her nemesis, star reporter of The Rumpus Recorder Samantha Rogers-Flavor butted in, "What do you know about Ms. Stuart, boys?"
"Oh," Erik said. "We found her body on the Walshes' farm, over by Lock Lake."
Mark then said, "Yeah, she's dead."
After doing a spit take with what iced tea was in his mouth, Deputy Martin Mundle dropped his barbecued pork sandwich on the plate and ran out the door with barbecue sauce all over his face and pants, a napkin still tucked into his shirt, tripping twice and knocking over a neatly stacked tower of on-sale motor oil before he got out the door.
"Yep, she's dead - dead as a doornail." Mark's use of the euphemism, although insensitive, was perfectly true; he verified his statement by poking the woman's body with the end of his fishing pole. Mark and two of his peers, Wally and Erik, had happened upon the corpse of well-known TV news reporter DiDi Stuart while walking across old Mr. Walsh's farm to their favorite fishing spot in Lock Lake on the outskirts of Rumpus.
DiDi's neck was bloody, and the blood's source seemed to have been a quarter-inch, dark red hole. It was 9:15 a.m. Eight months out of the year, the boys would have been in school at that time, but the date was Sept. 13, 1996. Summer vacation did not explain their truancy. The boys were not in school, as it was Friday the 13th, a particularly unlucky day to be in school, a day on which no one would question a child's absence from school. In the past four years, five Rumpus Elementary School students, who decided not to play hooky on Friday the 13th, never came home from school. The mysteries surrounding their disappearances continue to this day.
"Wow," Wally said. "I've never seen a dead person before." This was a surprising admission considering that Wally's father was the town mortician and the county coroner, and Erik could not let this illogical statement slide by without comment.
"Wally, your father runs the funeral home. You've never visited him on the job?"
"No, come to think of it. I haven't, and it's not like he brings his work home with him."
"Hmmmm." Mark and Erik pondered the stunning news before the three continued walking on to their fishing hole.
Three hours later, as they passed the body with a fresh catch of three small mouth bass and a perch, the boys reminded each other to tell somebody that they had happened upon the late DiDi Stuart.
"Wally, Erik," Mark said.
"Yes, Mark," Wally and Erik said in unison.
"We have to remember to tell someone that we found DiDi Stuart's dead body."
"I agree."
"I do, too."
On the way back into town, Wally, Erik and Mark pondered the blue sky, the best way to prevent dogs from getting fleas and the likelihood of a recurring black hole in the Rumpus Elementary School.
"That would help make sense of the unexplained disappearance of Walter and those other missing kids," Erik said.
"But how do you explain the 'quote' coincidence of all of the disappearances happening on Friday the 13th?" Mark said. "I think there's a serial killer on the loose in our grade school."
"Dude," Wally said, setting the proper tone. "Too much thinking. Need chocolate milkshake."
The boys had arrived in downtown Rumpus right outside Simpson's Rumpus Pharmacy and Hardware, known throughout Gleneden County as serving the world's best malts and milkshakes for less than $2.
Concurrence that the time for lunch and milkshakes was at hand having been reached, the boys all stepped into Simpson's.
They passed the hair care products on the left and the power tools on the right, straight to the counter where Martin Mundle and Samantha Rogers-Flavor were already seated.
The boys each ordered chili dogs and cherry Cokes. They split an order of cheese fries. As they were about to order their shakes (except Mark, as he was trying to lose weight), Erik said to his buddies, "Who do you think we should tell about DiDi Stuart?"
Overhearing the name of her nemesis, star reporter of The Rumpus Recorder Samantha Rogers-Flavor butted in, "What do you know about Ms. Stuart, boys?"
"Oh," Erik said. "We found her body on the Walshes' farm, over by Lock Lake."
Mark then said, "Yeah, she's dead."
After doing a spit take with what iced tea was in his mouth, Deputy Martin Mundle dropped his barbecued pork sandwich on the plate and ran out the door with barbecue sauce all over his face and pants, a napkin still tucked into his shirt, tripping twice and knocking over a neatly stacked tower of on-sale motor oil before he got out the door.
-x-
Uninsured? Dallas Pharmacy will help
This story reminds me why I often shop at local businesses even if it costs a little more. Sometimes it ends up costing a lot less (registration req'd; Bugmenot).
It looks like no other drug stores are doing this but Smith Drug feels it is the right thing to do. They want to help out uninsured patrons.
It's amazing that drugs get a 700% markup, and that this store would be willing to forego any markup.
Is it a bad business strategy?
It seems to be a good business idea as doctors in the area are so impressed that they are urging both insured and uninsured customers to go to Smith Drug.
I wonder how long this can last? Won't the insurance companies say that the pharmacy has to sell the drugs at the same prices to insured and uninsured?
It looks like no other drug stores are doing this but Smith Drug feels it is the right thing to do. They want to help out uninsured patrons.
Last month, Smith Drug Co. began selling prescriptions at no profit for underinsured and uninsured customers – a move some doctors and industry observers call unprecedented in their experience.
"It's really not fair to the customers to take advantage of them," said Kaylei Mosier, owner of the 145-year-old store in McKinney's historic downtown.
Take the drug ciprofloxacin, a generic medication commonly prescribed to treat infections. For 20 500-milligram pills, customers spend $84.59 at Walgreens.com. CanadaPharmacy.com charges $36 for the same amount, based on a 100-pill order.
At Smith Drug, it costs $10.22, including a $7 charge for labor and overhead, according to a letter sent to doctors this month.
It's amazing that drugs get a 700% markup, and that this store would be willing to forego any markup.
Is it a bad business strategy?
"You have other pharmacies that would question the wisdom of doing that from a profit standpoint, but that would be a business question."
Carla Chandler, 42, has insurance that covers three of her five medications. For one of the others, she called every pharmacy in the area and says she was quoted about $240 at one store. At Smith, the bill was $16.68. Drug delivery was free.
"My mouth dropped open. I said, 'Excuse me, that can't be right,' " Ms. Chandler said when she learned the cost of her medication at Smith Drug. "If it wasn't for them, it would mean we would have to go without paying one of our major bills."
It seems to be a good business idea as doctors in the area are so impressed that they are urging both insured and uninsured customers to go to Smith Drug.
McKinney urologist Jerry Frankel, a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, said he tries to send all his patients, insured or not, to the pharmacy after learning of the new policy.
"You can't make a living just taking care of uninsured people," he said. "I'm trying to direct people with open minds and good insurance to go there as well."
I wonder how long this can last? Won't the insurance companies say that the pharmacy has to sell the drugs at the same prices to insured and uninsured?
-x-
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Not Gonna Be the Rock Star
Apparently the director didn't like my suggestion that the curtain call needs to include the lines, the redhead right there is the emotionally passionate playwright who is available to speak with any swooning females.
UPDATE: I did put this in an email to the director, but I explained the joke to him. He knows that I don't really want that said and that I won't be going to Santa Fe to see the play anyhow.
It's only a plea for audiences (or readers) to fall in love with writers in addition to performers. Musicians, especially the singers, are the object of much affection. Actors often get a lot of attention for their beautiful display of human emotions. Writers (poets, fiction, playwrights) don't get to have the fun of the audience falling in love with us. Not in that immediate, emotional, and unique way performers get to experience it. I think that musicians and actors both deserve it for their talent (I know I've fallen for many a leading lady), but I'm still bitter. Bitter only in that way that I'll point it out once or twice until I bore myself.
UPDATE: I did put this in an email to the director, but I explained the joke to him. He knows that I don't really want that said and that I won't be going to Santa Fe to see the play anyhow.
It's only a plea for audiences (or readers) to fall in love with writers in addition to performers. Musicians, especially the singers, are the object of much affection. Actors often get a lot of attention for their beautiful display of human emotions. Writers (poets, fiction, playwrights) don't get to have the fun of the audience falling in love with us. Not in that immediate, emotional, and unique way performers get to experience it. I think that musicians and actors both deserve it for their talent (I know I've fallen for many a leading lady), but I'm still bitter. Bitter only in that way that I'll point it out once or twice until I bore myself.
-x-
The Quiet Town of Rumpus: Episode #1 A Prologue
Hello, friends. They say that summer is a great time for short stories. I know no real talent when it comes to writing short stories, but I've decided to have a little fun. May I entreat you this summer with a tale about the events that happened last year in the town of Rumpus, an (almost real) American community on the fringe.
This is a story about no one in particular ... at least, no one you would know.
The story opens with the discovery of the body of local TV reporter DIDI STUART by three Rumpus elementary school boys; the first is named MARK SANDLEWOOD, a child of no apparent significance other than that he discovered the body with
WALLACE "WALLY" HOGARTH, also a child particularly lacking in significance, and
ERIK DERRIK BRAWN, III, a child of great significance since he is the son of
ERIK DERRIK BRAWN, JR., the mayor of Rumpus, which in and of itself is an extremely insignificant position, and he only got the job because his father is
ERIK DERRIK BRAWN, SR., the owner of the First National Bank of Rumpus, as well as half the homes in Rumpus and just about every business excepting that of
MADGE HARSHWOOD, proprietress of the world famous Rumpus Supper Club ("world famous" due to its unrivaled carrot cake) and great-great granddaughter of Rumpus's founder, the late RICHARD OTIS RUMPUSS, a man of notorious composure and ambition as he also started the Rumpus Country Club, donated his private book collection to start the Rumpus Public Library and provided the funds for the Rumpus Museum of Contemporary Art and Regional History, which is run by the sister of DiDi Stuart's boss MARION ROGERS, as well as
Ms. Stuart's self-appointed nemesis, SAMANTHA ROGERS FLAVOR, who seems to have a double scoop with whipped cream on everybody in the town of Rumpus since her job as the town plumber allows her to slip in and out of the lives of Rumpus's residents, and since everyone gives her readily without question, her job as The Rumpus Recorder's star reporter allows her to capitalize on the information for her husband JIMMY FLAVOR, the mild-mannered editor of The Rumpus Recorder, who often finds himself placating various members of the community because of what his wife wrote in the paper, especially the sheriff of Rumpus JOSEPH MUNDLE, who balances the majority of his time between the crossword puzzle and cleaning up after his idiot son MARTIN MUNDLE, a deputy in the town of Rumpus, whose main job is to collect the coins from all the parking meters in downtown Rumpus, but since he has no idea how to retrieve the coins, no one feeds the meters anymore, not even ... but enough with the introductions.
You can meet the rest of the citizens of Rumpus in upcoming installments, unless a comet strikes the Earth and Bruce Willis is unable to save us.
Many of you are probably wondering, "Where is this Rumpus?"
Rumpus (pop. 1,245.3; the 0.3 represents the mutant Siamese twin growing out of Marshall Church's posterior, but neither Marshall Church nor his deformed half make an appearance in this story - at least, I don't think they do) was once the county seat of Glenedin County, until they built the big Glenny Glen Mall in Glenglen. It was decided that the center of commerce was a far better home for the County Courthouse, etc., etc., etc.
I don't want to reveal the state in which Rumpus is located, but you probably have a town very much like it near you. Pat Sajak is not the kind of man who would have grown up in Rumpus; Jerry Springer is, but then by that same token so is Ted Turner. Monica Lewinsky might have been head of the debate club at Glenedin County High School. If you grew up in Rumpus, you probably would have gone to a college that specialized in agribusiness; ironically, Rumpus has the highest number of children that grow to become professional flautists in the world.
Many strange happenings and occurrences and coincidences have taken place (and continue to take place) in Rumpus, and very few of them were/are the result(s) of spilloff from the nuclear plant on the outskirts of town. The dead have been known to walk in Rumpus.
Ichthyologists and other biological research scientists come to Rumpus just to study the plentiful three-eyed fish that grow in nearby Lock Lake. Fried three-eyed catfish is a local delicacy. Don't mock it until you've tried it!
A semi-randomly reoccurring wormhole keeps snatching Rumpus children, and people apparently are more likely to spontaneously combust in Rumpus.
Rumpus has more Liberace sightings than any other town in America.
When the second episode of The Quiet Town of Rumpus is posted tomorrow, I'd like you to grab a taco and read it, but don't enjoy the story. You have to fear and respect the goings-on in Rumpus, lest they happen to someone you love.
This is a story about no one in particular ... at least, no one you would know.
The story opens with the discovery of the body of local TV reporter DIDI STUART by three Rumpus elementary school boys; the first is named MARK SANDLEWOOD, a child of no apparent significance other than that he discovered the body with
WALLACE "WALLY" HOGARTH, also a child particularly lacking in significance, and
ERIK DERRIK BRAWN, III, a child of great significance since he is the son of
ERIK DERRIK BRAWN, JR., the mayor of Rumpus, which in and of itself is an extremely insignificant position, and he only got the job because his father is
ERIK DERRIK BRAWN, SR., the owner of the First National Bank of Rumpus, as well as half the homes in Rumpus and just about every business excepting that of
MADGE HARSHWOOD, proprietress of the world famous Rumpus Supper Club ("world famous" due to its unrivaled carrot cake) and great-great granddaughter of Rumpus's founder, the late RICHARD OTIS RUMPUSS, a man of notorious composure and ambition as he also started the Rumpus Country Club, donated his private book collection to start the Rumpus Public Library and provided the funds for the Rumpus Museum of Contemporary Art and Regional History, which is run by the sister of DiDi Stuart's boss MARION ROGERS, as well as
Ms. Stuart's self-appointed nemesis, SAMANTHA ROGERS FLAVOR, who seems to have a double scoop with whipped cream on everybody in the town of Rumpus since her job as the town plumber allows her to slip in and out of the lives of Rumpus's residents, and since everyone gives her readily without question, her job as The Rumpus Recorder's star reporter allows her to capitalize on the information for her husband JIMMY FLAVOR, the mild-mannered editor of The Rumpus Recorder, who often finds himself placating various members of the community because of what his wife wrote in the paper, especially the sheriff of Rumpus JOSEPH MUNDLE, who balances the majority of his time between the crossword puzzle and cleaning up after his idiot son MARTIN MUNDLE, a deputy in the town of Rumpus, whose main job is to collect the coins from all the parking meters in downtown Rumpus, but since he has no idea how to retrieve the coins, no one feeds the meters anymore, not even ... but enough with the introductions.
You can meet the rest of the citizens of Rumpus in upcoming installments, unless a comet strikes the Earth and Bruce Willis is unable to save us.
Many of you are probably wondering, "Where is this Rumpus?"
Rumpus (pop. 1,245.3; the 0.3 represents the mutant Siamese twin growing out of Marshall Church's posterior, but neither Marshall Church nor his deformed half make an appearance in this story - at least, I don't think they do) was once the county seat of Glenedin County, until they built the big Glenny Glen Mall in Glenglen. It was decided that the center of commerce was a far better home for the County Courthouse, etc., etc., etc.
I don't want to reveal the state in which Rumpus is located, but you probably have a town very much like it near you. Pat Sajak is not the kind of man who would have grown up in Rumpus; Jerry Springer is, but then by that same token so is Ted Turner. Monica Lewinsky might have been head of the debate club at Glenedin County High School. If you grew up in Rumpus, you probably would have gone to a college that specialized in agribusiness; ironically, Rumpus has the highest number of children that grow to become professional flautists in the world.
Many strange happenings and occurrences and coincidences have taken place (and continue to take place) in Rumpus, and very few of them were/are the result(s) of spilloff from the nuclear plant on the outskirts of town. The dead have been known to walk in Rumpus.
Ichthyologists and other biological research scientists come to Rumpus just to study the plentiful three-eyed fish that grow in nearby Lock Lake. Fried three-eyed catfish is a local delicacy. Don't mock it until you've tried it!
A semi-randomly reoccurring wormhole keeps snatching Rumpus children, and people apparently are more likely to spontaneously combust in Rumpus.
Rumpus has more Liberace sightings than any other town in America.
When the second episode of The Quiet Town of Rumpus is posted tomorrow, I'd like you to grab a taco and read it, but don't enjoy the story. You have to fear and respect the goings-on in Rumpus, lest they happen to someone you love.
-x-
[Insert Laughter]
I've always been fearful of laughing. I blame it on bad parenting.
As a child I was raised in front of the TV. Starting as a young child I saw Jack dancing around in his communal apartment when the unsuspecting, yet always around, landlord saw him through the window.
What do I do? I look around the room to see what my parents are doing. They have smiles. I hear people on the TV cueing me that it's now time to laugh. I join in. This is shortly followed by George getting scolded by Lousie for opening his mouth at the wrong time. There is laughter, and I join in.
From Family Ties to Growing Pains I grew up on TV that told me when it was time to laugh. Even Seinfeld has been kind enough to let me know when it is time to laugh. I've fought hard to come to terms with the fact that I don't know when it's appropriate to laugh. Is that joke I just heard funny? Probably not but everyone around is chuckling.
The laugh track has become the viagra for the entertainment industry that is supposed to make even the most limp joke humorous. Imagine where Saved by the Bell would have been without the help of the laugh track to show us that the predictable, if not preposterous, predicament is supposed to be funny.
I've come to hate these canned laughters. It's interesting at times to listen to the variations of the laughter, but that can only entertain so long. It doesn't seem that the cue for laughing to be abandoned for some time. According to some, it's not just the entertainment industry that is addicted to it,
At least this is what The Drew Carey Show executive producer Bruce Helford believes. Hey! I need a laugh track to take on the road with me, so I guess I don't feel so bad.
Is this true? Is it a uniquely American problem? Do shows really do poorly without it? I think that both of these are wrong assumptions.
First, there are plenty of British comedies that have fallen prey to the laugh track: Absolutely Fabulous and Monty Python's Flying Circus the most obvious answers. Of course, there is also lesser known shows like Red Dwarf that have the laugh track working in them.
The American public, if they aren't me, are smart enough to know when they should laugh. Our sense of humor hasn't been so conditioned to cues that it is impossible for us to know when something is funny. I was confused the first time I watched The Wonder Years, because it went without the laugh track. Should I laugh at what Paul just did? Isn't the brother actually pretty funny? I don't know! Then as a 13 year old I would sneak downstairs to watch Dream On. It was creative, it was sexy, and I thought it might be funny. Again, where was the laugh track? Other shows that skipped the laugh track: The Simpsons, Ally McBeal, The Larry Sanders Shows, and countless others.
Aaron Sorkin ran into some problems with ABC over his show, Sports Night, because the producers of the show did not want the laugh track or a live audience. The two normally work in conjunction where the laugh track is added later to smooth out the live laughter. M*A*S*H is one of the few shows that had a laugh track only. In Sports Night's case, the network won out and it was filmed in front of a live audience. ABC's senior VP of comedy programming, Carolyn Ginsburg Carlson said that "if done right, [the laugh track] can be wonderful." On the other hand, Aaron Sorkin thought that
I've found, perhaps only recently, the laugh track is getting in my way of watching television. Why does Seinfeld need a laugh track and live studio audience? Curb Your Enthusiasm, if I remember right, doesn't have a laugh track. Larry David, perhaps, learned of the folly of the laugh track.
Unfortunately the TV industry has made a science of the laugh track, and it is here to stay. The best we can hope for is a reduction in the volume of the laughs. It seems that as time goes on the laughter gets louder and louder. This trend is making me stand out all the more when someone starts to laugh at a joke just told at the bar. I chortle with joy as loud as can be knowing that I'm laughing at the right time.
As a child I was raised in front of the TV. Starting as a young child I saw Jack dancing around in his communal apartment when the unsuspecting, yet always around, landlord saw him through the window.
What do I do? I look around the room to see what my parents are doing. They have smiles. I hear people on the TV cueing me that it's now time to laugh. I join in. This is shortly followed by George getting scolded by Lousie for opening his mouth at the wrong time. There is laughter, and I join in.
From Family Ties to Growing Pains I grew up on TV that told me when it was time to laugh. Even Seinfeld has been kind enough to let me know when it is time to laugh. I've fought hard to come to terms with the fact that I don't know when it's appropriate to laugh. Is that joke I just heard funny? Probably not but everyone around is chuckling.
The laugh track has become the viagra for the entertainment industry that is supposed to make even the most limp joke humorous. Imagine where Saved by the Bell would have been without the help of the laugh track to show us that the predictable, if not preposterous, predicament is supposed to be funny.
I've come to hate these canned laughters. It's interesting at times to listen to the variations of the laughter, but that can only entertain so long. It doesn't seem that the cue for laughing to be abandoned for some time. According to some, it's not just the entertainment industry that is addicted to it,
People watching TV are so conditioned to hearing laughs that when the shows are tested without them, they don't do well. American audiences need a laugh track to be told it's okay to laugh out loud.
At least this is what The Drew Carey Show executive producer Bruce Helford believes. Hey! I need a laugh track to take on the road with me, so I guess I don't feel so bad.
Is this true? Is it a uniquely American problem? Do shows really do poorly without it? I think that both of these are wrong assumptions.
First, there are plenty of British comedies that have fallen prey to the laugh track: Absolutely Fabulous and Monty Python's Flying Circus the most obvious answers. Of course, there is also lesser known shows like Red Dwarf that have the laugh track working in them.
The American public, if they aren't me, are smart enough to know when they should laugh. Our sense of humor hasn't been so conditioned to cues that it is impossible for us to know when something is funny. I was confused the first time I watched The Wonder Years, because it went without the laugh track. Should I laugh at what Paul just did? Isn't the brother actually pretty funny? I don't know! Then as a 13 year old I would sneak downstairs to watch Dream On. It was creative, it was sexy, and I thought it might be funny. Again, where was the laugh track? Other shows that skipped the laugh track: The Simpsons, Ally McBeal, The Larry Sanders Shows, and countless others.
Aaron Sorkin ran into some problems with ABC over his show, Sports Night, because the producers of the show did not want the laugh track or a live audience. The two normally work in conjunction where the laugh track is added later to smooth out the live laughter. M*A*S*H is one of the few shows that had a laugh track only. In Sports Night's case, the network won out and it was filmed in front of a live audience. ABC's senior VP of comedy programming, Carolyn Ginsburg Carlson said that "if done right, [the laugh track] can be wonderful." On the other hand, Aaron Sorkin thought that
once you do shoot in front of a live audience, you have no choice but to use the laugh track. Oftentimes enhancing the laughs is the right thing to do. Sometimes you do need a cymbal crash. Other times, it alienates me.
I've found, perhaps only recently, the laugh track is getting in my way of watching television. Why does Seinfeld need a laugh track and live studio audience? Curb Your Enthusiasm, if I remember right, doesn't have a laugh track. Larry David, perhaps, learned of the folly of the laugh track.
Unfortunately the TV industry has made a science of the laugh track, and it is here to stay. The best we can hope for is a reduction in the volume of the laughs. It seems that as time goes on the laughter gets louder and louder. This trend is making me stand out all the more when someone starts to laugh at a joke just told at the bar. I chortle with joy as loud as can be knowing that I'm laughing at the right time.
-x-
