Professor Volokh posts It's a Good Thing Lawrence Summers Isn't at Iowa State.
What, they'd take him out of administration put him in the basketball program?
(Sorry to the folks in Ames, but given the events of last year I couldn't resist.)
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Around the 'Net
James Lileks is boycotting Bath and Body Works for discontinuing Eucalyptus Spearmint. I'm thisclose to doing the same if they yank one more of my favorite scents. All it takes is another source for Body Butter. Maybe online from The Body Shop?
_________________________
Slashdot indicates that Google has found a way to stop comment spam. Yay!
_________________________
You know it's a slow news day when . . .
Woman Recognized as 10th Oldest in Iowa Dies.
Have fun with parody headlines in the comments.
Of course, nothing spices up slow news days like a good sex toy editorial.
_________________________
Matthew Yglesias points out that yesterday's flap about Harvard's Lawrence Summer's speech - which posited that genetic differences between men and women could be one reason there are fewer women in science - is a red herring. It has nothing to do with Harvard's affirmative action plan. I agree it's a red herring. But it doesn't negate my point: why not call him out on that, and on any and all flaws in the science he's using, rather than stifiling all debate on the subject? For my full rant go here.
_________________________
And, finally, the legal blogging:
Justice Rehnquist denies Michael Newdow's request for an injunction against the inaugeral prayers.
If you are a non-lawyer type and ever wonder what a law school exam looks like, go to this post on the Legal Underground by a Torts Professor Bill Childs. It's got links to his exam this year. I'm steering clear beyond this post - just skimming it brings on flashbacks.
Slashdot indicates that Google has found a way to stop comment spam. Yay!
You know it's a slow news day when . . .
Woman Recognized as 10th Oldest in Iowa Dies.
Have fun with parody headlines in the comments.
Of course, nothing spices up slow news days like a good sex toy editorial.
Matthew Yglesias points out that yesterday's flap about Harvard's Lawrence Summer's speech - which posited that genetic differences between men and women could be one reason there are fewer women in science - is a red herring. It has nothing to do with Harvard's affirmative action plan. I agree it's a red herring. But it doesn't negate my point: why not call him out on that, and on any and all flaws in the science he's using, rather than stifiling all debate on the subject? For my full rant go here.
And, finally, the legal blogging:
Justice Rehnquist denies Michael Newdow's request for an injunction against the inaugeral prayers.
If you are a non-lawyer type and ever wonder what a law school exam looks like, go to this post on the Legal Underground by a Torts Professor Bill Childs. It's got links to his exam this year. I'm steering clear beyond this post - just skimming it brings on flashbacks.
Online Crime-Fighting
Brent at Cop Talk blogs on becoming part of the internet task force. Correlates nicely with the DM Register's series on Randy Brown.
I dislike the series, because the title and the tone of the articles suggests Brown was "Imprisoned by the Internet," as if he were powerless over his decision to download and masturbate to child porn. Okay, even in the disease model of addiction, it is recognized that a person can make a conscious one-day-at-a-time decision to stop using his or her drug of choice, with the help of a 12-step program, etc. And at least alcoholism, smoking, etc., don't generally involve trading pictures of people abusing kids. I can't fathom the kind of overt selfishness it requires for him to play the role of a victim.
They minimize the offense:
Today's article discussed at length how devastating it will be for him if he's not allowed to be around children unsupervised after his release.
Well, look at how he got caught and you tell me whether he should be allowed around children:
I have an idea - why doesn't the DM Register go the extra mile and request Brown authorize them access to the logs? The transcripts should prove exactly what was said.
DISCLAIMER:
For those who don't know me personally, I should state that I've known people with this "problem" both personally and in my former position as a prosecutor.
As a whole, they consistently paint themselves as victims, no matter how horrid their actions.
I recall one defendant trying to explain meticulously how his ten-year-old stepdaughter sexually seduced him.
Of course, that was over a year after his conviction, when a court-ordered psychosexual exam caught him out. Before that, he and the mother - who was present in the home during the abuse - both swore the girl was a slut and a liar. Last I heard, she was having real problems getting over the sheer betrayal of being lied about on top of being abused.
I don't believe in capital punishment for various reasons, but I've not often come closer to wanting to kill someone.
Articles like this soft-pedal the horrors child porn inflicts on kids. Speaking in terms of the 'victimhood' of the men and women who get off on the pictures of kids being abused does nothing but perpetuate the nightmare.
I dislike the series, because the title and the tone of the articles suggests Brown was "Imprisoned by the Internet," as if he were powerless over his decision to download and masturbate to child porn. Okay, even in the disease model of addiction, it is recognized that a person can make a conscious one-day-at-a-time decision to stop using his or her drug of choice, with the help of a 12-step program, etc. And at least alcoholism, smoking, etc., don't generally involve trading pictures of people abusing kids. I can't fathom the kind of overt selfishness it requires for him to play the role of a victim.
They minimize the offense:
Is that a 14-year-old girl who looks 18? An 18-year-old who looks 14? Sometimes it's impossible to tell.
So easy, so exciting.
So dangerous. . . .
Investigators found 2,600 pornographic images when they confiscated the computers. Twenty-six were deemed "problematic."
Today's article discussed at length how devastating it will be for him if he's not allowed to be around children unsupervised after his release.
Well, look at how he got caught and you tell me whether he should be allowed around children:
Brown says he doesn't remember role-playing with the person who blew the whistle on him. That person was an Indianapolis man named Jason Young, posing as a 15-year-old girl.
Young told authorities Brown was pretending to be a 25-year-old bank employee.
Brown says he doesn't remember assuming that identity but agrees it's possible. In one of the chat rooms, he came across a female-sounding user name that interested him. Young, who declined to comment for this story, does not say why he was pretending to be a female.
Whatever the reason, taking on a false identity is common chat-room behavior. It's a game of charades anyway, so what's the harm?
"People are always questioning you," Brown says. " 'Are you really that old? Are you married?' People are leery."
If Brown was leery, he was also intrigued. He clicked on a name. Of all the choices, he had to make this one.
It could have been a cop. The chat rooms are filled with law enforcement officers ready to make a bust.
Young was no cop, but when the conversation quickly took a sexual turn, he kept it going, he told authorities, just for the sport of it. There were several conversations over a period of months.
About this time, authorities say, Brown also sent Young unsolicited pictures of minors posing nude - but not engaged in sexually explicit activity.
Just as the law makes a distinction between adult pornography and child pornography, it draws a line between child pornography and erotica featuring children. The latter is legal so long as it has redeeming artistic value.
Though Brown does not admit sending images of minors over the Internet - charges of distributing child pornography were dropped - Young gave authorities a different version of the story, and they say Young began to worry. He knew this kind of activity was inappropriate at the very least. He became uneasy with the situation. Was he breaking the law now?
The dialogue ended, investigators were told, when Brown mentioned he was in Indianapolis and wanted to get together.
At that point, Young called the FBI, which directed him to the Cyber Tipline - (800) THE-LOST - set up by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Brown and his lawyer say Young is wrong about the meeting. They say Brown never tried to arrange one, was never in Indianapolis.
Marshall says the ISU Department of Public Safety learned through the university athletic department that a basketball recruiting trip to Indianapolis had been scheduled but canceled.
Here is where Brown throws up his hands in frustration and anger.
"I'll say to the very last day I never intended to meet anybody regardless of age," he says. "I'm guilty of possessing child pornography. I don't condone it, for anybody. I recognize the dangers. I have kids. But I never set anything up. No matter what kind of shape I was in, no matter how bad, I never would have gone that far. No way. I know that to be true in the deepest part of my soul."
Law enforcement officials cannot see into an offender's soul.
"We're just glad we stopped him," Marshall says, "before he molested any children."
The friends who know Brown best believe him; the authorities who fight the crime aren't willing to make that leap.
This much is indisputable: Young's tip unleashed events that would put Brown in prison. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children notified the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in Des Moines, which contacted the ISU Department of Public Safety, which reviewed the chat logs Young had saved and traced the Internet protocol addresses to the Iowa State computer network and an account belonging to Randall Alan Brown."
I have an idea - why doesn't the DM Register go the extra mile and request Brown authorize them access to the logs? The transcripts should prove exactly what was said.
DISCLAIMER:
For those who don't know me personally, I should state that I've known people with this "problem" both personally and in my former position as a prosecutor.
As a whole, they consistently paint themselves as victims, no matter how horrid their actions.
I recall one defendant trying to explain meticulously how his ten-year-old stepdaughter sexually seduced him.
Of course, that was over a year after his conviction, when a court-ordered psychosexual exam caught him out. Before that, he and the mother - who was present in the home during the abuse - both swore the girl was a slut and a liar. Last I heard, she was having real problems getting over the sheer betrayal of being lied about on top of being abused.
I don't believe in capital punishment for various reasons, but I've not often come closer to wanting to kill someone.
Articles like this soft-pedal the horrors child porn inflicts on kids. Speaking in terms of the 'victimhood' of the men and women who get off on the pictures of kids being abused does nothing but perpetuate the nightmare.
BLOGGER BASH
The guys at Tusk and Talon have made an executive decision for all us procrastinators. The scoop:
2005 IOWA BLOGGER BASH
Date:
Saturday, February 26, 2005.
Time:
6:00 P.M.
Location:
Des Moines, IA. Wellman's. On Ingersoll.
Invited:
Iowa Bloggers, Devoted Readers, and Significant Others of Each, Respectively.
I'll be there if my rehearsal schedule allows. . . .
Date:
Saturday, February 26, 2005.
Time:
6:00 P.M.
Location:
Des Moines, IA. Wellman's. On Ingersoll.
Invited:
Iowa Bloggers, Devoted Readers, and Significant Others of Each, Respectively.
I'll be there if my rehearsal schedule allows. . . .
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
I Know I'm Going to Regret Admitting This . . .
I take issue with the flap at Harvard regarding Lawrence Summers' statements that we need to consider nature as well as nurture when discussing the dearth of women in the math and science fields.
Summers had stated that there were several potential reasons for the lack of statistical female representation. He mentioned the "mommy track" and the idea that women who had families were simply not willing to work the 80-plus hours per week required by the higher level positions. He indicated that testing shows men outstrip women in high school math and science, and questioned whether biological propensities, and not just societal shaping, gave men an advantage in those areas.
When challenged about the statements, he gave a thoughtful response, according to the article:
Unfortunately, the folks on my side of the gender line were not quite so glib:
Personally, I think he's right.
Before you light the torches, I'm NOT saying the theory of biological predetermination has been proved, nor that "girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider."
The refusal to address the biological component of the debate, as inappropriate per se, denies us the ability to fully explore the logic surrounding the premise. We can't learn from facts we won't acknowledge, nor can we disprove logical fallacies that we're not willing to debate. We know from scientific research that men and women listen with very different parts of the brain, respond differently to visceral stimulation, and have different brain structures, for a start. So what do we do with that? Bury it? The militant suppression of opposing viewpoints is nothing more than the manifestation of an extreme fear of what lies behind the veil. Why not disprove gender advantage myths where we can? For example, this post on Alas, a Blog makes a good argument that many of the "men are stronger" presumptions might actually be false.
Worst case scenario: after all is said and done, we do the research and discover that scientific evidence utterly validates the old genetic stereotypes. Boys really do have a genetic advangage with math, and girls with verbal skills, and we can point to regions of the brain that determine these abilities.
So what? That doesn't mean either gender is better, simply different. Why not use it to refine our educational system to take advantage of the natural ability, and to make up the deficits, on an individual basis?
Of course, we could always just walk out and ignore the whole thing.
Or would that prove we're the weaker sex?
NOTE -
Originally saw the story on Matthew Yglesias' blog. I like his take on the lack of women in science:
'Nuf said.
UPDATE:
Okay, maybe not quite enough. Scrappleface made me giggle:
Go read the rest - it's too good.
Summers had stated that there were several potential reasons for the lack of statistical female representation. He mentioned the "mommy track" and the idea that women who had families were simply not willing to work the 80-plus hours per week required by the higher level positions. He indicated that testing shows men outstrip women in high school math and science, and questioned whether biological propensities, and not just societal shaping, gave men an advantage in those areas.
When challenged about the statements, he gave a thoughtful response, according to the article:
"'My remarks have been misconstrued as suggesting that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math and science. I did not say that, nor do I believe it. I am deeply committed to the advancement of women in science, and all of us have a crucial stake in accelerating progress toward that end.' He added that the 'harder we work to research and understand the situation, the better the prospects for long-term success.'"
Unfortunately, the folks on my side of the gender line were not quite so glib:
"Nancy Hopkins, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the academics who walked out of the conference.
She said that, had she not done so, she 'would have either blacked out or thrown up.'"
Personally, I think he's right.
Before you light the torches, I'm NOT saying the theory of biological predetermination has been proved, nor that "girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider."
The refusal to address the biological component of the debate, as inappropriate per se, denies us the ability to fully explore the logic surrounding the premise. We can't learn from facts we won't acknowledge, nor can we disprove logical fallacies that we're not willing to debate. We know from scientific research that men and women listen with very different parts of the brain, respond differently to visceral stimulation, and have different brain structures, for a start. So what do we do with that? Bury it? The militant suppression of opposing viewpoints is nothing more than the manifestation of an extreme fear of what lies behind the veil. Why not disprove gender advantage myths where we can? For example, this post on Alas, a Blog makes a good argument that many of the "men are stronger" presumptions might actually be false.
Worst case scenario: after all is said and done, we do the research and discover that scientific evidence utterly validates the old genetic stereotypes. Boys really do have a genetic advangage with math, and girls with verbal skills, and we can point to regions of the brain that determine these abilities.
So what? That doesn't mean either gender is better, simply different. Why not use it to refine our educational system to take advantage of the natural ability, and to make up the deficits, on an individual basis?
Of course, we could always just walk out and ignore the whole thing.
Or would that prove we're the weaker sex?
NOTE -
Originally saw the story on Matthew Yglesias' blog. I like his take on the lack of women in science:
"Now in my experience with any dorky, male-dominated activity, the problem is this: Every time a woman begins to participate in the dorky, male-dominated activity, she is immediately pounced upon by dozens of dorky, unappealing men. Some people have sufficient commitment to electrical engineering (or blogging or philosophy or whatever) to press forward nevertheless. The faint of heart, however, are driven away by the nerds never to be seen again."
'Nuf said.
UPDATE:
Okay, maybe not quite enough. Scrappleface made me giggle:
Harvard Chief Sends Roses to Fainting Female Prof
by Scott Ott
(2005-01-18) -- Harvard University President Lawrence Summers today sent a dozen roses to MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins after she nearly fainted last week during Mr. Summers' remarks about potential biological differences between the sexes which might explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers.
Ms. Hopkins told The New York Times, "When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe."
If she hadn't walked out of the conference, she said she "would have either blacked out or thrown up." . . .
Go read the rest - it's too good.
Pokerbloggin
I've got a new post in our signature poker blog "Are You Going to Let Him Push You Around Like That?" Go check it out. Or I'll copy and paste it here, just so's it gets read. I mean it.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Will Blog for Bucks?
IowaHawk demonstrates the inevitable consequences of joining the blogging for cash craze.
I actually had a ticketing agency want to put a text link on the sidebar, for $100 per year for one link. I didn't think it was worth the hassle to remember to include it everytime I tweaked my template, though I still haven't responded to the latest query letter. Besides, next thing you know people will want me to plug their shows or something.
I actually had a ticketing agency want to put a text link on the sidebar, for $100 per year for one link. I didn't think it was worth the hassle to remember to include it everytime I tweaked my template, though I still haven't responded to the latest query letter. Besides, next thing you know people will want me to plug their shows or something.
Lookin for Love?
This almost made me snort pop out my nose.
I'm not kidding.
From Jennifer. Her title: The thin line between reality and parody.
I'm not kidding.
From Jennifer. Her title: The thin line between reality and parody.
Unintentional Consequences of Booker/Fanfan?
Martha may seek early release.
By the way, Professor Berman's got the whole Booker thing covered over on his blog. Great if you've got an appellate case pending, just about TMI for the rest of us. Wow.
By the way, Professor Berman's got the whole Booker thing covered over on his blog. Great if you've got an appellate case pending, just about TMI for the rest of us. Wow.
Iowa Supremes Draw a Crowd
In my second year of law school, I attended the training course for prosecuting interns required by Iowa law. We got two perks: 1) Tour the Department of Criminal Investigattions laboratory (very cool); and 2) Watch an Iowa Supreme Court argument (cool for us but about as interesting as you'd expect). We entered an echoing, formal courtroom to find the two attorneys and a couple of extraneous court personnel. That was it, until the justices arrived.
Apparently, it was quite different on Friday, when six Iowa legislators got their PR suit heard. They were suing based on an allegation that Judge Neary's ruling last year granting the dissolution of a Vermont Civil Union caused them enough personal harm to allow them to intervene in a motion to set aside the ruling. According to the Des Moines Register:
Apparently, it was quite different on Friday, when six Iowa legislators got their PR suit heard. They were suing based on an allegation that Judge Neary's ruling last year granting the dissolution of a Vermont Civil Union caused them enough personal harm to allow them to intervene in a motion to set aside the ruling. According to the Des Moines Register:
"Iowa's chief justice on Friday questioned whether six Republican lawmakers have the legal standing to challenge a judge's controversial ruling that granted a divorce to a lesbian couple.
"What injuries have you suffered?" Chief Justice Louis Lavorato asked the lawyer for the legislators, who have argued that the 2003 divorce ruling by Judge Jeffrey Neary of Merrill legitimized the couple's Vermont civil union, which is not recognized in Iowa.
The Iowa Supreme Court took up the issue Friday. The oral arguments drew a crowd that filled the spacious fourth-floor courtroom at the new judiciary building.
. . .
Neary signed the divorce papers during a brief daily period when judges meet with attorneys and approve routine orders. He said he didn't realize the two people in the divorce were women until after he signed the papers.
But when he discovered the facts, he declined to withdraw the order, and a few weeks later amended it to say that he ended only the civil union in Vermont, not a marriage.
His critics say that he should have sent the two women back to Vermont if they wanted a divorce, and that he encroached on the Legislature's authority to make law.
Six Republican lawmakers, joined by U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Ia., and a Le Mars minister, took the issue to court. Their attorney, Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund in Kansas City, told Lavorato that the lawmakers, as "the public," have a stake in Neary's ruling, even if they weren't involved in the case."
Two More Interesting Cases
The California Court of Appeals has ruled. I guess PETA didn't prove the cows were unhappy.
UPDATE: It's actually just a procedural thing - a governmental entity can't be sued under the State's Unfair Practices Act. So the issue of relative cow happiness remains unresolved.
__________________________
The Cobb County, Georgia textbook warning stickers are unconstitutional. The sticker had read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The Court noted the process by which the stickers were voted upon, and the rather vociforous arguments of either side. It found under the Lemon Test that the stickers served two secular purposes: Fostering critical thinking among the district's students, and presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile to those with conflicting religious beliefs.
However, the Court found that the effect of the stickers was religious, as a whole, was impermissible:
At first, I was not persuaded that the sticker would necessarily be a violation. It is facially neutral where religion is concerned and there were plenty of potential secular purposes to be invoked. But as the Court points out, the problem lies in the singling out of evolution as a theory - thus implying that all the other theories that were not so singled out had some ethereal factual standing higher than evolution. Of course, they could always adopt a sticker that looks something like this:
My slight problem with all this lies in this quote:
Please tell me you're not arguing to remove the sticker because it's too hard to teach the difference between a theory and a fact in high school. Okay, this isn't third grade. Even if it makes the school day a touch difficult, don't you think it's a good idea to have your students fully hash out the idea of 'theory' vs 'hypothesis' vs 'fact,' so they have a good handle on the concept before they get to college? Just a thought.
UPDATE: It's actually just a procedural thing - a governmental entity can't be sued under the State's Unfair Practices Act. So the issue of relative cow happiness remains unresolved.
The Cobb County, Georgia textbook warning stickers are unconstitutional. The sticker had read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." The Court noted the process by which the stickers were voted upon, and the rather vociforous arguments of either side. It found under the Lemon Test that the stickers served two secular purposes: Fostering critical thinking among the district's students, and presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile to those with conflicting religious beliefs.
However, the Court found that the effect of the stickers was religious, as a whole, was impermissible:
"In this case, the Court believes that an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders . . .
The critical language in the Sticker that supports the conclusion that the Sticker runs afoul of the Establishment Clause is the statement that "[e]volution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things " This statement as not problematic because of its truth or falsity, rather . . . the School Board appears to have sided with the proponents of religious theories of origin in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Sticker is a statement composed of only three sentences, and the Sucker makes up only a very small part of a text that contains hundreds of pages on evolution. Nevertheless, the Sticker is prominently featured at the front of the textbooks, and the Sticker focuses exclusively on evolution. The Sticker is the only one of its kind in the science textbooks, and there are no other stickers placed in any other textbooks used in the Cobb County School District regarding any other subjects. Therefore, although the message on the Sticker might be small in size when compared to the numerous pages of material on evolution in the textbook, the message has an overwhelming presence The School Board has explicitly endorsed its approval of this message, and students are bound to see the message when they open their textbooks."
At first, I was not persuaded that the sticker would necessarily be a violation. It is facially neutral where religion is concerned and there were plenty of potential secular purposes to be invoked. But as the Court points out, the problem lies in the singling out of evolution as a theory - thus implying that all the other theories that were not so singled out had some ethereal factual standing higher than evolution. Of course, they could always adopt a sticker that looks something like this:
NEWS FLASH: We weren't here when the universe and/or humankind began, so we don't exactly know how the whole thing started. We can have theories, but until we can replicate them and observe the results of interesting government-funded experiments, we can't exactly prove any of them to be true per se. Zip. Nada. None. No "intelligent design," no "big bang," nothing. In fact, you are free to approach the facts with an open mind an come up with alternate theories. Who knows, your theory may be the next big trend in earth science. That said, some of these theories have a lot more facts backing them up than others. If you don't learn the facts, it doesn't matter to which theory you ascribe. You are guaranteed to look like an idiot. Others will laugh at you, you will be familiar with the phrasing "barking moonbat," and you will flunk this class. Consider yourself warned.
My slight problem with all this lies in this quote:
". . . Dr McCoy testified that the Board's misuse of the word "theory" in the Sticker causes "confusion" in his science class and consequently requires him to spend significantly more time trying to distinguish "fact" and "theory" for his students . . . Dr. McCoy stated that some of his students translate the Sticker to state that evolution is "just" a theory, which he believes has the effect of diminishing the status of evolution among all other theories."
Please tell me you're not arguing to remove the sticker because it's too hard to teach the difference between a theory and a fact in high school. Okay, this isn't third grade. Even if it makes the school day a touch difficult, don't you think it's a good idea to have your students fully hash out the idea of 'theory' vs 'hypothesis' vs 'fact,' so they have a good handle on the concept before they get to college? Just a thought.
Ouch
The Court has denied Michael Newdow's request for an injunction preventing any inaugeral prayers pending his appeal on his suit alleging that's an unconstitutional entertwining of church and state. According to the order:
Saw it on How Appealing.
UPDATE:
Okay, and I had to giggle at this from Scott Ott's Scrappleface:
UPDATE UPDATE: According to Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS, the word is he's filing an appeal with the Supremes tomorrow.
"ORDERED that the motion be denied. Appellant has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on his challenge. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977)."
Saw it on How Appealing.
UPDATE:
Okay, and I had to giggle at this from Scott Ott's Scrappleface:
"Newdow Petitions to Strike God from Judge's Ruling
by Scott Ott
(2005-01-14) -- Just hours after losing his bid to prohibit Christian prayer at the presidential inauguration ceremony, atheist Michael Newdow filed a motion to have the court remove references to God or religion from all official records of his most recent legal proceeding, Newdow v. George W. Bush (PDF).
"In the court's 50-page ruling alone," said Mr. Newdow, "I was shocked to find 10 mentions each of God, Christianity and church, 14 uses of the word 'religion' and 12 of 'faith,' three instances of 'divine' or 'divinity,' no fewer than 44 mentions of Christ, and 256 appearances of various forms of the word 'prayer'. And I haven't even read the transcripts yet." . . . "
UPDATE UPDATE: According to Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS, the word is he's filing an appeal with the Supremes tomorrow.
If you have a Masochistic Desire for More Monday morning brain strain . . .
Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner and Professor Gary Becker tackle the issue of tort reform on their blog.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Theater Stuff
When I got into town yesterday, I went out to ICCT to show my support for Guys and Dolls. It's tech weekend, and they're opening Friday. Although everyone was fairly well exhausted by the time I got there, the set was starting to take shape and the voices sounded great. I'm going on opening night, if anyone else is up for it. The info:
____________________________
Luck be a lady tonight! Bring your best girl to Iowa City Community Theatre's sassy performance of the timeless classic "Guys and Dolls," opening January 21st at 8:00 p.m. at the Iowa City Fairgrounds. Considered by many to be the perfect musical comedy, Guys and Dolls brings a cast of vivid characters who have become legends: Sarah Brown, the upright but uptight "mission doll," out to reform the evildoers of Time Square; Sky Masterson, the slick, high-rolling gambler who woos her on a bet and ends up falling in love; Adelaide, a nightclub performer whose 14-year-long engagement to the same man induces a chronic allergic reaction; and Nathan Detroit, Adelaide's long-term fiancé, desperate to find a spot for his infamous floating crap game.
Based on the Damon Runyon's 1932 short story "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown," Abe Burrows and Jo Swerling's hilarious, fast-paced book and Frank Loesser's bright, brassy, immortal score makes Guys And Dolls one of the most frequently performed musicals ever, and an ideal production for audiences and performers of any age.
PERFORMANCES:
Friday, January 21st at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday, January 22nd at 8:00 p.m.
Friday, January 28th at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday, January 29th at 8:00 p.m.
Sunday, January 30th at 2:30 p.m.
Friday February 4th at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday February 5th at 8:00 p.m.
Sunday, February 6th at 2:30 p.m.
Doors open for evening performances at 7:00, and at 1:30 for matinees. Tickets for adults are $12 for evening performances, $11 for matinees. Students and seniors pay $10 for evening performances and $9 for matinees. Kindergarten through Sixth Grade students pay $6. For tickets, call the ICCT Box Office at 1-319-338-0443, or visit J. Hall Keyboards or the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center. Group rates are also available. Visit the ICCT Web site at www.iowacitycommunitytheatre.com for additional information.
____________________________
Tomorrow night I've got my first read-through for Hedda.
I've actually not worked onstage with Adam or Ron before despite their respective impressive lists of theatrical accomplishments. Everybody else is, of course, nothing short of phenomenal. Last night, I was talking with Josh, our AD, and Janet, who is an incredibly intelligent and kind person who 1) plays Sarah Brown in Guys and Dolls, 2) was a finalist for the Hedda role and 3) is now going to be dramaturg for Hedda. Both of them have already given extensive thought to some of the levels of depth in the script. Janet's even started pulling resources on Scandinavian society in the period. Wow.
BTW, that's one of the coolest things about local theater in our area, at least th e people I've been privileged to work with. Janet would've been an awesome Hedda. Kara and Dorreen, the other two I saw read, would also have put on an extremely good show. Regardless, it was never a question that whichever of us got the part, the others would try to help to make it the best production possible. It's really an extended family. A rather disfunctional one, at times, but that's another story.
____________________________
I've also got to remember to give a plug for Dreamwell's production of Someone Who'll Watch Over Me. The relevance of the piece to the situation in the Middle East alone should make it worth the ticket price:
Someone Who'll watch Over Me
by Frank McGuinness
directed by Gerry Roe
assistant directed by Brian Tanner
February 4,5, 11, 12, 18, 19 2005
Tickets are $10.00 for the general public, Seniors 65 and over $8.00, and $7.00 for students (with ID), and can be picked up and paid for (by cash or check only) the night of the show.
A play that is perhaps more relevant today than when it was first produced, Someone Who’ll Watch Over Me explores the daily crises of three hostages, an Englishman, an Irishman and an American, who are imprisoned in the Middle East. Dreamwell first brought this show to Iowa City audiences in 1998. The original cast and director return to re-create one of our finest shows.
Cast:
Michael - Matthew Falduto
Adam - Thomas Williams
David - Matthew Brewbaker
You might notice familiar names in the cast, no? It is a recreation, and I heard really good things about the first run.
____________________________
City Circle Acting Company will be auditioning for Mornings at Seven.
Mornings at Seven
Director Pauline Tyer ("1776", "Quilters") brings this classic comedic drama to life on our Oakdale stage. The play, by screenwriter Paul Osborn ("East of Eden", "The Yearling") tells the story of four sisters, three husbands, one forty year old son, and his fiancee of ten years that none of the family has met. A perfect "well-made" play, "Mornings at Seven" features some of the best, most experienced actors to ever grace the City Circle stage in a show designed to move the heart and get a laugh at the same time.
Audition Info:
Sun, Jan 30, 2-4 pm
Mon, Jan 31, 7-9 pm
(location TBA)
Production Info:
Runs April 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. Thurs-Saturdays at 8:00 pm, Sunday Matinees at 2:30 pm.
Pauline Tyer directed Rosenstrasse, and I highly recommend it if you get a chance to work with her. It's less like doing a show and more like taking an intensive course in acting, with the show as the eventual outcome. No matter how much you've tried, no matter how well you think you nailed the line, she'll come up with something more she'd like to see. And somehow, you find it in yourself to pull that last little bit of meaning out of a part of your brain and soul you never even knew you had. It's hard work, but worth it.
____________________________
Finally, if you've got kids you might want to take them to see City Circle's A Year with Frog and Toad:
"A Year with Frog and Toad" is the musical adapation based on the classic childrens books by Arnold Lobel. Follow the adventures of best friends and neighbors Frog and Toad, as well as assorted birds and woodland creatures as they make their way through the year to the infectious score by brothers Willie and Robert Reale.
A four time Tony nominee in 2003, this is a sure fire delight for the whole family! Director Bret Gothe promises a perfect escape from the February chill with this heart warming, toe tapping, madcap musical feast, perfect for children of any age.
This also marks City Circle's first formal collaboration with the Iowa Childrens Museum at Coral Ridge Mall, in what we hope will be an annual tradition. So, find a kid, or at least someone young at heart, and make your way to the marsh for "A Year with Frog and Toad" you won't soon forget!
February 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27. Fridays at 7: 30 pm, Satudays at 2:30 and 7:30 pm, Sundays at 2:30 pm.
I know Kate Thompson and Patty McTaggert are in it, and they always do brilliant work, and that's just part of the ensemble. I didn't get the scoop on anyone else yet, and I can't seem to find it on the website.
____________________________
A final "by the way" - I see City Circle's site now has production photos in the upper right hand corner, apparently randomly shuffling. I saw scene from Psycho Beach Party and Metamorphoses and the New Play Festival, then one from the Allergist's Wife. Then it occurred to me: does anybody know if they put all the photos into the shuffle?
Specifically, did I not half-jokingly swear I'd come after people if certain Allergist's Wife photos started circulating on the web? I showed less than I typically do at the beach, so I suppose I don't care, but it still would've been a bit of a shock if I hadn't seen this and someone had, say, emailed me a bra shot at work.
Don't make me choke on my coffee, people.
Luck be a lady tonight! Bring your best girl to Iowa City Community Theatre's sassy performance of the timeless classic "Guys and Dolls," opening January 21st at 8:00 p.m. at the Iowa City Fairgrounds. Considered by many to be the perfect musical comedy, Guys and Dolls brings a cast of vivid characters who have become legends: Sarah Brown, the upright but uptight "mission doll," out to reform the evildoers of Time Square; Sky Masterson, the slick, high-rolling gambler who woos her on a bet and ends up falling in love; Adelaide, a nightclub performer whose 14-year-long engagement to the same man induces a chronic allergic reaction; and Nathan Detroit, Adelaide's long-term fiancé, desperate to find a spot for his infamous floating crap game.
Based on the Damon Runyon's 1932 short story "The Idyll of Miss Sarah Brown," Abe Burrows and Jo Swerling's hilarious, fast-paced book and Frank Loesser's bright, brassy, immortal score makes Guys And Dolls one of the most frequently performed musicals ever, and an ideal production for audiences and performers of any age.
PERFORMANCES:
Friday, January 21st at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday, January 22nd at 8:00 p.m.
Friday, January 28th at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday, January 29th at 8:00 p.m.
Sunday, January 30th at 2:30 p.m.
Friday February 4th at 8:00 p.m.
Saturday February 5th at 8:00 p.m.
Sunday, February 6th at 2:30 p.m.
Doors open for evening performances at 7:00, and at 1:30 for matinees. Tickets for adults are $12 for evening performances, $11 for matinees. Students and seniors pay $10 for evening performances and $9 for matinees. Kindergarten through Sixth Grade students pay $6. For tickets, call the ICCT Box Office at 1-319-338-0443, or visit J. Hall Keyboards or the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center. Group rates are also available. Visit the ICCT Web site at www.iowacitycommunitytheatre.com for additional information.
Tomorrow night I've got my first read-through for Hedda.
I've actually not worked onstage with Adam or Ron before despite their respective impressive lists of theatrical accomplishments. Everybody else is, of course, nothing short of phenomenal. Last night, I was talking with Josh, our AD, and Janet, who is an incredibly intelligent and kind person who 1) plays Sarah Brown in Guys and Dolls, 2) was a finalist for the Hedda role and 3) is now going to be dramaturg for Hedda. Both of them have already given extensive thought to some of the levels of depth in the script. Janet's even started pulling resources on Scandinavian society in the period. Wow.
BTW, that's one of the coolest things about local theater in our area, at least th e people I've been privileged to work with. Janet would've been an awesome Hedda. Kara and Dorreen, the other two I saw read, would also have put on an extremely good show. Regardless, it was never a question that whichever of us got the part, the others would try to help to make it the best production possible. It's really an extended family. A rather disfunctional one, at times, but that's another story.
I've also got to remember to give a plug for Dreamwell's production of Someone Who'll Watch Over Me. The relevance of the piece to the situation in the Middle East alone should make it worth the ticket price:
Someone Who'll watch Over Me
by Frank McGuinness
directed by Gerry Roe
assistant directed by Brian Tanner
February 4,5, 11, 12, 18, 19 2005
Tickets are $10.00 for the general public, Seniors 65 and over $8.00, and $7.00 for students (with ID), and can be picked up and paid for (by cash or check only) the night of the show.
A play that is perhaps more relevant today than when it was first produced, Someone Who’ll Watch Over Me explores the daily crises of three hostages, an Englishman, an Irishman and an American, who are imprisoned in the Middle East. Dreamwell first brought this show to Iowa City audiences in 1998. The original cast and director return to re-create one of our finest shows.
Cast:
Michael - Matthew Falduto
Adam - Thomas Williams
David - Matthew Brewbaker
You might notice familiar names in the cast, no? It is a recreation, and I heard really good things about the first run.
City Circle Acting Company will be auditioning for Mornings at Seven.
Mornings at Seven
Director Pauline Tyer ("1776", "Quilters") brings this classic comedic drama to life on our Oakdale stage. The play, by screenwriter Paul Osborn ("East of Eden", "The Yearling") tells the story of four sisters, three husbands, one forty year old son, and his fiancee of ten years that none of the family has met. A perfect "well-made" play, "Mornings at Seven" features some of the best, most experienced actors to ever grace the City Circle stage in a show designed to move the heart and get a laugh at the same time.
Audition Info:
Sun, Jan 30, 2-4 pm
Mon, Jan 31, 7-9 pm
(location TBA)
Production Info:
Runs April 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. Thurs-Saturdays at 8:00 pm, Sunday Matinees at 2:30 pm.
Pauline Tyer directed Rosenstrasse, and I highly recommend it if you get a chance to work with her. It's less like doing a show and more like taking an intensive course in acting, with the show as the eventual outcome. No matter how much you've tried, no matter how well you think you nailed the line, she'll come up with something more she'd like to see. And somehow, you find it in yourself to pull that last little bit of meaning out of a part of your brain and soul you never even knew you had. It's hard work, but worth it.
Finally, if you've got kids you might want to take them to see City Circle's A Year with Frog and Toad:
"A Year with Frog and Toad" is the musical adapation based on the classic childrens books by Arnold Lobel. Follow the adventures of best friends and neighbors Frog and Toad, as well as assorted birds and woodland creatures as they make their way through the year to the infectious score by brothers Willie and Robert Reale.
A four time Tony nominee in 2003, this is a sure fire delight for the whole family! Director Bret Gothe promises a perfect escape from the February chill with this heart warming, toe tapping, madcap musical feast, perfect for children of any age.
This also marks City Circle's first formal collaboration with the Iowa Childrens Museum at Coral Ridge Mall, in what we hope will be an annual tradition. So, find a kid, or at least someone young at heart, and make your way to the marsh for "A Year with Frog and Toad" you won't soon forget!
February 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27. Fridays at 7: 30 pm, Satudays at 2:30 and 7:30 pm, Sundays at 2:30 pm.
I know Kate Thompson and Patty McTaggert are in it, and they always do brilliant work, and that's just part of the ensemble. I didn't get the scoop on anyone else yet, and I can't seem to find it on the website.
A final "by the way" - I see City Circle's site now has production photos in the upper right hand corner, apparently randomly shuffling. I saw scene from Psycho Beach Party and Metamorphoses and the New Play Festival, then one from the Allergist's Wife. Then it occurred to me: does anybody know if they put all the photos into the shuffle?
Specifically, did I not half-jokingly swear I'd come after people if certain Allergist's Wife photos started circulating on the web? I showed less than I typically do at the beach, so I suppose I don't care, but it still would've been a bit of a shock if I hadn't seen this and someone had, say, emailed me a bra shot at work.
Don't make me choke on my coffee, people.
Sanctions Still Viable in Iowa
In my own area, the Appellate court decided Farm Bureau v. the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County. It enhances the tools that insurance companies can use to protect against fraud.
FACTS:
The Guilliams had an insurance policy with Farm Bureau on a mobile home. They owned the home, but had moved and had been trying to sell it for quite some time. Rodney Guilliams had been unemployed for a year prior to the fire and was experiencing financial difficulties. The Guilliams had removed the mobile home from the market after the death of Rodney’s brother, as they were planning on moving to Missouri, to be near Rodney’s mother. The policy, which provided coverage on the Guilliams’ mobile home for property losses caused by fire, contained an exclusion for intentional acts. On May 17, 2001, the Guilliams’ mobile home and its contents were destroyed by an arson fire. The Guilliams filed a claim with Farm Bureau for the loss.
Farm Bureau found out that the Guilliams had kept two five-gallon cans of gas at the empty trailer, ostensibly for his lawn mower. One of the people arrested for the arson was Ron Flowers, a family friend that Rodney had met when both were incarcerated in the Pottawattamie County Jail. Despite Rodney’s significant financial difficulties, he took out an advance of $2,500 on his credit card to assist Flowers in paying his bail after Flowers was arrested on the arson charge. At about this time, Farm Bureau made a written settlement proposal to the Guilliams. According to a claims adjuster, while Farm Bureau was suspicious, it did not feel it had enough information to deny the claim.
Fortunately for Farm Bureau, Flowers, who had a criminal record, entered into a plea agreement with the State. In exchange for Flowers’ cooperation with the arson investigation, Flowers was permitted to plead guilty to arson in the third degree with the understanding that the State would recommend probation with placement in a community corrections facility. Flowers then made an unsworn statement to an assistant county attorney alleging that Rodney Guilliams had solicited Flowers to commit the arson. On April 24 a trial information was filed charging Rodney Guilliams with solicitation of a felony. Based on the detailed statement and the indictment, Farm Bureau sent a denial letter for the claim.
The Guilliams, through their attorney Joseph Hrvol, filed a complaint against Farm Bureau, alleging breaches of the insurance contract and the settlement agreement, as well as a first-party bad faith claim. The lawsuit proceeded to trial, and the jury returned verdicts in favor of Farm Bureau on all of the Guilliams’ claims.
ISSUE:
Farm Bureau then moved for sanctions against the Guilliams and their counsel under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413(1), which requires the signatory of a petition to have read the petition, be acting without improper motive, and
On a first-party bad faith claim, the issue was whether the insurance claim was fairly debatable:
According to the Court of Appeals, the Court's question therefore boiled down to "whether the information, as viewed by a reasonably competent attorney, revealed an objectively reasonable basis for the insurance company’s denial." If the claim was fairly debatable as a matter of law, then a reasonably competent counsel could not make a plausible argument in support of a first-party bad faith claim, and filing such a claim would violate rule 1.413(1).
ANALYSIS:
The Guilliams and attorney Hrvol argued that a jury could have found Farm Bureau acted unreasonably in denying their claim, because the only new information Farm Bureau received after agreeing to settle the claim was Flowers’ statement. They assert this unsworn statement was an insufficient basis on which to deny the Guilliams’ claim, because it was made by an individual with a criminal record, and was given in consideration of reduced charges and after an opportunity to review both police investigative reports and Rodney’s statements to Farm Bureau investigators.
The Court disagreed:
The Court therefore remanded the case back to the District Court for a new ruling on the motion for sanctions.
OBLIGATORY BLOG COMMENTARY:
Absent the possibility of sanctions, a bad-faith claim would have no downside for the plaintiff and only court costs as a downside for claimant counsel. It's used simply as the next logical step whenever a company denies a claim: roll the dice and either get lucky or end up the same denial you had before. This case clarifies that you could actually get dinged for sanctions, making it a tad riskier to bring the bad-faith claim without solid evidence that no reasonable grounds for the denial existed.
FACTS:
The Guilliams had an insurance policy with Farm Bureau on a mobile home. They owned the home, but had moved and had been trying to sell it for quite some time. Rodney Guilliams had been unemployed for a year prior to the fire and was experiencing financial difficulties. The Guilliams had removed the mobile home from the market after the death of Rodney’s brother, as they were planning on moving to Missouri, to be near Rodney’s mother. The policy, which provided coverage on the Guilliams’ mobile home for property losses caused by fire, contained an exclusion for intentional acts. On May 17, 2001, the Guilliams’ mobile home and its contents were destroyed by an arson fire. The Guilliams filed a claim with Farm Bureau for the loss.
Farm Bureau found out that the Guilliams had kept two five-gallon cans of gas at the empty trailer, ostensibly for his lawn mower. One of the people arrested for the arson was Ron Flowers, a family friend that Rodney had met when both were incarcerated in the Pottawattamie County Jail. Despite Rodney’s significant financial difficulties, he took out an advance of $2,500 on his credit card to assist Flowers in paying his bail after Flowers was arrested on the arson charge. At about this time, Farm Bureau made a written settlement proposal to the Guilliams. According to a claims adjuster, while Farm Bureau was suspicious, it did not feel it had enough information to deny the claim.
Fortunately for Farm Bureau, Flowers, who had a criminal record, entered into a plea agreement with the State. In exchange for Flowers’ cooperation with the arson investigation, Flowers was permitted to plead guilty to arson in the third degree with the understanding that the State would recommend probation with placement in a community corrections facility. Flowers then made an unsworn statement to an assistant county attorney alleging that Rodney Guilliams had solicited Flowers to commit the arson. On April 24 a trial information was filed charging Rodney Guilliams with solicitation of a felony. Based on the detailed statement and the indictment, Farm Bureau sent a denial letter for the claim.
The Guilliams, through their attorney Joseph Hrvol, filed a complaint against Farm Bureau, alleging breaches of the insurance contract and the settlement agreement, as well as a first-party bad faith claim. The lawsuit proceeded to trial, and the jury returned verdicts in favor of Farm Bureau on all of the Guilliams’ claims.
ISSUE:
Farm Bureau then moved for sanctions against the Guilliams and their counsel under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413(1), which requires the signatory of a petition to have read the petition, be acting without improper motive, and
certify that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the pleading . . . is (1) well grounded on the facts and (2) warranted either by existing law or by a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
On a first-party bad faith claim, the issue was whether the insurance claim was fairly debatable:
[T]o establish a claim for first-party bad faith, the insured must prove two facts: (1) that the insurer had no reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and, (2) the insurer knew, or had reason to know, that its denial was without basis. The first element is objective, the second subjective. If a claim is " 'fairly debatable,' the insurer is entitled to debate it, whether the debate concerns a matter of fact or law." "Whether a claim is fairly debatable is appropriately decided by the court as a matter of law."
According to the Court of Appeals, the Court's question therefore boiled down to "whether the information, as viewed by a reasonably competent attorney, revealed an objectively reasonable basis for the insurance company’s denial." If the claim was fairly debatable as a matter of law, then a reasonably competent counsel could not make a plausible argument in support of a first-party bad faith claim, and filing such a claim would violate rule 1.413(1).
ANALYSIS:
The Guilliams and attorney Hrvol argued that a jury could have found Farm Bureau acted unreasonably in denying their claim, because the only new information Farm Bureau received after agreeing to settle the claim was Flowers’ statement. They assert this unsworn statement was an insufficient basis on which to deny the Guilliams’ claim, because it was made by an individual with a criminal record, and was given in consideration of reduced charges and after an opportunity to review both police investigative reports and Rodney’s statements to Farm Bureau investigators.
The Court disagreed:
However, a reasonable person could also find, in light of previously known and undisputed facts, that the statement was sufficiently reliable and credible to raise a fair debate about the validity of the Guilliams’ claim.
The court must look to all the information Farm Bureau had received up to the time it denied the claim, and which was within attorney Hrvol’s knowledge at the time the petition was filed. . . . Under the circumstances presented here, reasonable individuals could differ as to the credibility and weight to be afforded Flowers’ statement. It therefore logically follows that Farm Bureau’s reliance on the statement in denying the Guilliams’ claim was objectively reasonable. Thus, the first-party bad faith claim was unsupported as a matter of law.
The Court therefore remanded the case back to the District Court for a new ruling on the motion for sanctions.
OBLIGATORY BLOG COMMENTARY:
Absent the possibility of sanctions, a bad-faith claim would have no downside for the plaintiff and only court costs as a downside for claimant counsel. It's used simply as the next logical step whenever a company denies a claim: roll the dice and either get lucky or end up the same denial you had before. This case clarifies that you could actually get dinged for sanctions, making it a tad riskier to bring the bad-faith claim without solid evidence that no reasonable grounds for the denial existed.
Anything Goes
In the less-sensational but still interesting arena: That old (Iowa) adage that an uncounseled misdemeanor not resulting in jail time can't be used as a prior offense for enhancement? Not so much. State v. Allen, a January 7th decision by the Supreme Court says they're fair game.
More Long Legal Posts
Last week's decisions have been posted: three new Iowa Supreme Court decisions went up on the 14th, and a slew of Court of Appeals decisions got posted on the 13th.
The Iowa City Press Citizen noted Moore v. State, which upheld the conviction of Wesley Todd Moore in the 1999 strangulation of Michael Krohn. The facts of the case were set out in a 2002 Court of Appeals decision posted here:
The current appeal involved an allegation that Weese would testify that: 1) Moore had taken a whole bunch of drugs and alcohol (negating the specific intent to kill); 2) Krohn was up an conscious at the time that they left him (making it less likely Moore really thought he was going to die). Moore wanted the Court to consider this as "newly discovered evidence" to prompt a new trial.
The problem? The evidence was generally known before, only Weese wouldn't testify because he had his own case pending at the time. That meant it was not "newly discovered evidence" sufficient to grant a new trial in Iowa. The test as outlined by the court: (1) was discovered after the verdict, (2) could not have been earlier discovered in the exercise of due diligence, (3) was material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) probably would have changed the results of the trial. Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 (Iowa 2003).
Moore raised several other minor issues, all along the same theme - the jury didn't really realize how drunk Moore was at the time of the attack, nor did they realize how Krohn was up and concious when Moore left the apartment. If they had known that, and correlated it with the fact that Moore was an EMT, they couldn't possibly have found the specific intent to kill. The Court addressed these points at length, but I think the response is best summed up in this sentence:
The Iowa City Press Citizen noted Moore v. State, which upheld the conviction of Wesley Todd Moore in the 1999 strangulation of Michael Krohn. The facts of the case were set out in a 2002 Court of Appeals decision posted here:
On the evening of May 29, 1999, Michael Krohn struck up a conversation with Wesley Moore and Shawn Weese at the Deadwood Bar in Iowa City. Later that evening, Krohn suggested they go to a different bar. While en route, Krohn stopped at his apartment to pick up some money. Moore and Weese accompanied him to the apartment, where the three drank shots of whisky. Moore then produced some pills and insisted that Krohn take one. Krohn refused, which angered Moore. Moore then stood in front of Krohn and told him he “was going to have to die.” Krohn started to stand up, but Moore punched him in the face and began choking him. Moore then told Weese to rip the phone out of the wall, which he did. Moore continued to strangle Krohn for twenty to thirty seconds and Krohn eventually lost consciousness. He awoke sometime later lying on the floor and heard Weese say “he’s getting up.” Moore then said, “tighten that towel around his neck” and Krohn felt a knee in the small of his back and a towel tightening around his neck. He again lost consciousness. When Krohn regained consciousness for the second time, he ran to a neighbor’s apartment and called police. He passed out again at the neighbor’s apartment.
The current appeal involved an allegation that Weese would testify that: 1) Moore had taken a whole bunch of drugs and alcohol (negating the specific intent to kill); 2) Krohn was up an conscious at the time that they left him (making it less likely Moore really thought he was going to die). Moore wanted the Court to consider this as "newly discovered evidence" to prompt a new trial.
The problem? The evidence was generally known before, only Weese wouldn't testify because he had his own case pending at the time. That meant it was not "newly discovered evidence" sufficient to grant a new trial in Iowa. The test as outlined by the court: (1) was discovered after the verdict, (2) could not have been earlier discovered in the exercise of due diligence, (3) was material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) probably would have changed the results of the trial. Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 (Iowa 2003).
Moore raised several other minor issues, all along the same theme - the jury didn't really realize how drunk Moore was at the time of the attack, nor did they realize how Krohn was up and concious when Moore left the apartment. If they had known that, and correlated it with the fact that Moore was an EMT, they couldn't possibly have found the specific intent to kill. The Court addressed these points at length, but I think the response is best summed up in this sentence:
"Even if we assume that Moore did not have the specific intent to kill Krohn when he left the apartment, the record is replete with evidence from which the jury could have concluded that, at the time of the attack, Moore did possess the specific intent to cause Krohn’s death. This is all that is required to support a finding of the specific intent to kill."
Adventures in Airports
To expand on this a bit:
Studying lines with a hangover:
A) Stop torturing yourself
B) Just punishment for drinking Pinot Grigio until you can’t pronounce it anymore.
C) All of the above.
FYI - I broke down and finished a Grisham novel purchased in the hotel lobby when I checked in.
I do realize I wasn't supposed to have a novel in my possession. I was going to be very, very good and memorize vast tracts of "Hedda Gabler." Yep.
Then the delays began. I was stuck on runways and in overcrowded terminals with very cranky people all day. Stress makes people weird. Most just sat, eyes vacant and hopeless. Some people got territorial, moving and rearranging their luggage into invisible blockades. If they thought others were getting to close or trying to get ahead of them in some intangible line, they'd rearrange again, pushing slightly against the transgressor and sighing with pointed exasperation. The adult version of "Stop touching me." Just about everyone else had apparently had a cell phone surgically grafted to their ear. The most intimate details of their lives shouted out for everyone's entertainment. You can learn the most interesting stuff that way. People are really weird.
Given the three hour layover in Chicago, I decided to try to separate myself from the masses. I hit the best restaurant/bar I could find, waited forever for a table, and pulled out the lines.
They did help a bit - nothing says "move over and don't talk to me" like running lines in public.
With gestures.
Particularly ones like "I'm burning the child, Thea."
People tend to give you space.
When I finally arrived, I found my dinner plans were understandably canceled. Pretty pointless to meet up at 9:00 at night, I suppose. I didn't feel like venturing down to the hotel bar to sit at a table by myself, so I went down to the lobby store and got the Grisham.
It was either that or a romance novel.
I then ordered room service and ate french fries in my jammies. I even splurged on real Coke rather than the nasty diet stuff. It was a bit of a treat, as there's no fast food within twenty miles of my house, and I got fodder for my next 50-book challenge post.
Studying lines with a hangover:
A) Stop torturing yourself
B) Just punishment for drinking Pinot Grigio until you can’t pronounce it anymore.
C) All of the above.
FYI - I broke down and finished a Grisham novel purchased in the hotel lobby when I checked in.
I do realize I wasn't supposed to have a novel in my possession. I was going to be very, very good and memorize vast tracts of "Hedda Gabler." Yep.
Then the delays began. I was stuck on runways and in overcrowded terminals with very cranky people all day. Stress makes people weird. Most just sat, eyes vacant and hopeless. Some people got territorial, moving and rearranging their luggage into invisible blockades. If they thought others were getting to close or trying to get ahead of them in some intangible line, they'd rearrange again, pushing slightly against the transgressor and sighing with pointed exasperation. The adult version of "Stop touching me." Just about everyone else had apparently had a cell phone surgically grafted to their ear. The most intimate details of their lives shouted out for everyone's entertainment. You can learn the most interesting stuff that way. People are really weird.
Given the three hour layover in Chicago, I decided to try to separate myself from the masses. I hit the best restaurant/bar I could find, waited forever for a table, and pulled out the lines.
They did help a bit - nothing says "move over and don't talk to me" like running lines in public.
With gestures.
Particularly ones like "I'm burning the child, Thea."
People tend to give you space.
When I finally arrived, I found my dinner plans were understandably canceled. Pretty pointless to meet up at 9:00 at night, I suppose. I didn't feel like venturing down to the hotel bar to sit at a table by myself, so I went down to the lobby store and got the Grisham.
It was either that or a romance novel.
I then ordered room service and ate french fries in my jammies. I even splurged on real Coke rather than the nasty diet stuff. It was a bit of a treat, as there's no fast food within twenty miles of my house, and I got fodder for my next 50-book challenge post.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Homeward Bound
I’ve only got a few more minutes before catching my flight home, but I had to see what Ellen was able to do in the comments. Not bad, though more effective if you can actually hear the sarcasm in her voice.
While I liked 29’s suggestion, I ended up going to the Capitol Grill for lunch with two Hot Kansas City Lawyers.
Who didn’t pay me a thing for using that label.
No, seriously.
While I liked 29’s suggestion, I ended up going to the Capitol Grill for lunch with two Hot Kansas City Lawyers.
Who didn’t pay me a thing for using that label.
No, seriously.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Gotta Giggle
Generally, I have to learn tech stuff by trial and error. Somehow, simply observing someone else do it isn't enough to imprint the task into my long term memory. I have to go through the torture and embarassment of "figuring it out myself" for anything to make a dent.
So I'm at Champps in Lombard after the funeral last weekend and I want to try to connect wireless. I open the wireless box and have it search for a connection. Nothing. I try switching a few of the advanced options. Again, nothing. I ask a friend, Byron, to come over and look at it, since his laptop seems to work fine in there. He mucks around for a while, but can't get it to go. So we rope in the bar manager. He knows more than either of us, and is even running mysterious lists in DOS to check drivers. Still nothing. His prognosis is that I must not have installed the driver (when I bought the notebook I wiped the XP Home and installed XP Pro, as it's got fewer bugs). That made sense, so this week I located the driver disc and reinstalled it.
So I get to the hotel and try to hook up (okay that sounds bad). Still nothing.
The "no connection" message has a bit in it about whether my wireless switch is on. Last week, I'd searched the help menus and the internet to see if this was some additional settings I needed to tweak in order to have it work, but couldn't find anything. So today I'm staring at the keyboard, and I notice a little button on top marked "wireless."
Yup.
I'd almost hoped it would just pull up the same dialogue box, so I wouldn't look quite so much like an idiot. But, no, a simple push of the button and wireless is working fine now. Though the Marriott is insane if they think I'll pay $10 per day for something I can get free in half the bars and coffee shops in Kansas City.
(Yes, that's wide open, Ellen-Not-the-Moonbat. I left it as a present just for you. Have fun with the comments.)
So I'm at Champps in Lombard after the funeral last weekend and I want to try to connect wireless. I open the wireless box and have it search for a connection. Nothing. I try switching a few of the advanced options. Again, nothing. I ask a friend, Byron, to come over and look at it, since his laptop seems to work fine in there. He mucks around for a while, but can't get it to go. So we rope in the bar manager. He knows more than either of us, and is even running mysterious lists in DOS to check drivers. Still nothing. His prognosis is that I must not have installed the driver (when I bought the notebook I wiped the XP Home and installed XP Pro, as it's got fewer bugs). That made sense, so this week I located the driver disc and reinstalled it.
So I get to the hotel and try to hook up (okay that sounds bad). Still nothing.
The "no connection" message has a bit in it about whether my wireless switch is on. Last week, I'd searched the help menus and the internet to see if this was some additional settings I needed to tweak in order to have it work, but couldn't find anything. So today I'm staring at the keyboard, and I notice a little button on top marked "wireless."
Yup.
I'd almost hoped it would just pull up the same dialogue box, so I wouldn't look quite so much like an idiot. But, no, a simple push of the button and wireless is working fine now. Though the Marriott is insane if they think I'll pay $10 per day for something I can get free in half the bars and coffee shops in Kansas City.
(Yes, that's wide open, Ellen-Not-the-Moonbat. I left it as a present just for you. Have fun with the comments.)
Thursday, January 13, 2005
I'm Leaving On a Jet Plane
I've got to fly to Kansas City this morning for a mediation tomorrow. I hate flying in winter. I'm always looking out the window of the plane, trying to see if they remembered to de-ice the wings. I'd feel much better if they had a little gadget that would flash green when they've been properly doused in whatever ungodly chemicals they use, so I could just relax. On the upside, I'm going to take my home laptop with me instead of my work one, after transferring the relevant files. I want to re-try the whole "wireless" thing. (It didn't work last week in Chicago). Blogging from the terminal bar would be cool.
Speaking of terminal, we got the diagnosis on Dad. Okay, bad segue, but really, what can you say? It's all a tad much, but we're coping. It's not immediate, and chemo can conceivably put it off for a while, but ultimately it's a reminder to take the time to connect with people because you really never know how long you're going to have them.
And on a more positive note, I got the word I'm gonna play Hedda. Yay! It's going to be a ton of work, so I'm taking the play with me and banning all other reading material for the immediate future. I finished Scarlatti (#2 for the 50 book challenge) yesterday - the ending was far weaker if you're expecting the typical Ludlum showdown for a climax, but there was a lot less serendipity and artificiality in the plot as a whole than in his late stuff.
I'll check in as I can.
Did I mention I'm going to play Hedda?
Speaking of terminal, we got the diagnosis on Dad. Okay, bad segue, but really, what can you say? It's all a tad much, but we're coping. It's not immediate, and chemo can conceivably put it off for a while, but ultimately it's a reminder to take the time to connect with people because you really never know how long you're going to have them.
And on a more positive note, I got the word I'm gonna play Hedda. Yay! It's going to be a ton of work, so I'm taking the play with me and banning all other reading material for the immediate future. I finished Scarlatti (#2 for the 50 book challenge) yesterday - the ending was far weaker if you're expecting the typical Ludlum showdown for a climax, but there was a lot less serendipity and artificiality in the plot as a whole than in his late stuff.
I'll check in as I can.
Did I mention I'm going to play Hedda?
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Iowa's Child Enticement Law in Violation of First Amendment Free Speech
I'm a few days late, but the most recent Iowa Supreme Court cases are here. Of note: State v. Quinn.
FACTS:
Sometime late in the afternoon of April 22, 2003, an eight-year-old second-grader, was riding her bike on the sidewalk across from her house, while her father was working on his motorcycle in his garage. Shortly afterward, she saw a brown car with a dark brown stripe drive by. The driver said “hi” to her. The driver turned the car around and then pulled into a driveway, blocking her path on the sidewalk. The driver spoke to her through his open window, saying, “come over here” and gesturing with his index finger to come over. She thought the driver indicated that he wanted her to “come over in the car—into the car, go into the car,” however, the driver did not offer anything to her. She then screamed, “Dad,” which brought her father over. She was hysterical, and couldn't at first describe what was wrong. Eventually, her parents called the police.
The police searched for a car that matched the description but did not find it in the area. Approximately forty-five minutes after the incident, the police had a suspect — Ryan Patrick Quinn. Officer Takacs went to Quinn’s home in Davenport and waited for him. When Quinn arrived about thirty minutes later, Officer Takacs spoke with Quinn and then contacted Chief Kopatich, who came to Quinn’s residence. Chief Kopatich photographed Quinn’s vehicle, which matched the Agnews’ description.
Quinn told the officers that he had been in Walcott earlier, he turned around in a residential neighborhood, and said “hi” to a little girl. Quinn agreed to speak with the officers at the Walcott police department where Chief Kopatich took photographs of him. At the police department, Quinn described his activities for the day. He went to a dental appointment and played golf in Iowa City. On his way home, he stopped in Durant for cigarettes. As he was driving, he threw a cigarette out the window, feared it blew into the backseat, so he stopped in Walcott to check on it. He said “hi” to a little girl, backed out of a driveway, and left the area. He heard a girl scream, but did not know what was going on.
Chief Kopatich told Quinn he did not believe the story at which point Quinn became defiant, insisting that he had told the truth. Chief Kopatich then had Quinn put in writing what he had just told the officer. After he signed the written statement, Quinn signed a Miranda rights waiver.
At trial, Officer Takacs testified that after Chief Kopatich left the room, he and Quinn had more conversation. He further testified that Quinn said the little girl was smiling and looked to be having a good time, that as soon as he made eye contact, she became scared, and “the look on her face was like she could read my mind like she knew what I wanted to do to her later.” According to Officer Takacs, the conversation continued during which Quinn said he would go out, drive around at random, and make some kind of eye contact with a female and such contact was enough stimulation for him to go home, take a nice hot shower, and masturbate. Officer Takacs further testified that Quinn said he usually preferred girls fourteen and sixteen years of age because girls his age made fun of him and that he had had only two sex partners in his life.
At Chief Kopatich’s request, Quinn signed a second written statement. In this statement, Quinn stated that he would never try to pick up a girl, never has, and never wanted to. He craves only eye contact from girls; he thinks about the eye contact when he takes a shower and masturbates.
THE LAW:
Iowa Code § 710.10(3) - A person commits an aggravated misdemeanor when, without authority and with the intent to commit an illegal act upon a minor under the age of sixteen, the person attempts to entice away a minor under the age of sixteen, or attempts to entice away a person reasonably believed to be under the age of sixteen.
“Entice” is defined under prior caselaw as “‘to draw on by arousing hope or desire’ or ‘to draw into evil ways,’” or “[t]o wrongfully solicit, persuade, procure, allure, attract, draw by blandishment, coax or seduce. To lure, induce, tempt, incite, or persuade a person to do a thing. Enticement of a child is inviting, persuading or attempting to persuade a child to enter any vehicle, building, room or secluded place with intent to commit an unlawful sexual act upon or with the person of said child.” State v. Osmundson, 546 N.W.2d 907 (Iowa 1996).
Iowa Code section 710.10(4) - A person’s intent to commit a violation of this section may be inferred when the person is not known to the person being enticed away and the person does not have the permission of the parent, guardian, or custodian to contact the person being enticed away.
ISSUES:
The defendant sought to have his conviction overturned on two grounds: 1) There was insufficient evidence to convict him of a violation of the Iowa enticement statute; and 2) That even if there was sufficient evidence, the statute itself violates the First Amendment right to free speech because it's too broad, in that 710.10(4) allows the intent to entice to be inferred whenever a minor is spoken to without parental permission.
CONCLUSION:
The Court found there was sufficient evidence to find a violation of the enticement statute under a totality of the circumstances, particularly considering the defendant's statement that the hysterical girl looked "like she could read my mind like she knew what I wanted to do to her later.”
However, the Court agreed that 710.10(4) would serve to allow a jury to infer an intent to entice even absent aggravating circumstances whenever someone would speak to a minor without permission, and so struck down the entire statute as unconstitutional, both in fact and as applied to the defendant.
OBLIGATORY BLOG COMMENTARY:
Right legal conclusion, but I still think all females will want to avoid anywhere that this guy hangs out. Creepy at best.
FACTS:
Sometime late in the afternoon of April 22, 2003, an eight-year-old second-grader, was riding her bike on the sidewalk across from her house, while her father was working on his motorcycle in his garage. Shortly afterward, she saw a brown car with a dark brown stripe drive by. The driver said “hi” to her. The driver turned the car around and then pulled into a driveway, blocking her path on the sidewalk. The driver spoke to her through his open window, saying, “come over here” and gesturing with his index finger to come over. She thought the driver indicated that he wanted her to “come over in the car—into the car, go into the car,” however, the driver did not offer anything to her. She then screamed, “Dad,” which brought her father over. She was hysterical, and couldn't at first describe what was wrong. Eventually, her parents called the police.
The police searched for a car that matched the description but did not find it in the area. Approximately forty-five minutes after the incident, the police had a suspect — Ryan Patrick Quinn. Officer Takacs went to Quinn’s home in Davenport and waited for him. When Quinn arrived about thirty minutes later, Officer Takacs spoke with Quinn and then contacted Chief Kopatich, who came to Quinn’s residence. Chief Kopatich photographed Quinn’s vehicle, which matched the Agnews’ description.
Quinn told the officers that he had been in Walcott earlier, he turned around in a residential neighborhood, and said “hi” to a little girl. Quinn agreed to speak with the officers at the Walcott police department where Chief Kopatich took photographs of him. At the police department, Quinn described his activities for the day. He went to a dental appointment and played golf in Iowa City. On his way home, he stopped in Durant for cigarettes. As he was driving, he threw a cigarette out the window, feared it blew into the backseat, so he stopped in Walcott to check on it. He said “hi” to a little girl, backed out of a driveway, and left the area. He heard a girl scream, but did not know what was going on.
Chief Kopatich told Quinn he did not believe the story at which point Quinn became defiant, insisting that he had told the truth. Chief Kopatich then had Quinn put in writing what he had just told the officer. After he signed the written statement, Quinn signed a Miranda rights waiver.
At trial, Officer Takacs testified that after Chief Kopatich left the room, he and Quinn had more conversation. He further testified that Quinn said the little girl was smiling and looked to be having a good time, that as soon as he made eye contact, she became scared, and “the look on her face was like she could read my mind like she knew what I wanted to do to her later.” According to Officer Takacs, the conversation continued during which Quinn said he would go out, drive around at random, and make some kind of eye contact with a female and such contact was enough stimulation for him to go home, take a nice hot shower, and masturbate. Officer Takacs further testified that Quinn said he usually preferred girls fourteen and sixteen years of age because girls his age made fun of him and that he had had only two sex partners in his life.
At Chief Kopatich’s request, Quinn signed a second written statement. In this statement, Quinn stated that he would never try to pick up a girl, never has, and never wanted to. He craves only eye contact from girls; he thinks about the eye contact when he takes a shower and masturbates.
THE LAW:
Iowa Code § 710.10(3) - A person commits an aggravated misdemeanor when, without authority and with the intent to commit an illegal act upon a minor under the age of sixteen, the person attempts to entice away a minor under the age of sixteen, or attempts to entice away a person reasonably believed to be under the age of sixteen.
“Entice” is defined under prior caselaw as “‘to draw on by arousing hope or desire’ or ‘to draw into evil ways,’” or “[t]o wrongfully solicit, persuade, procure, allure, attract, draw by blandishment, coax or seduce. To lure, induce, tempt, incite, or persuade a person to do a thing. Enticement of a child is inviting, persuading or attempting to persuade a child to enter any vehicle, building, room or secluded place with intent to commit an unlawful sexual act upon or with the person of said child.” State v. Osmundson, 546 N.W.2d 907 (Iowa 1996).
Iowa Code section 710.10(4) - A person’s intent to commit a violation of this section may be inferred when the person is not known to the person being enticed away and the person does not have the permission of the parent, guardian, or custodian to contact the person being enticed away.
ISSUES:
The defendant sought to have his conviction overturned on two grounds: 1) There was insufficient evidence to convict him of a violation of the Iowa enticement statute; and 2) That even if there was sufficient evidence, the statute itself violates the First Amendment right to free speech because it's too broad, in that 710.10(4) allows the intent to entice to be inferred whenever a minor is spoken to without parental permission.
CONCLUSION:
The Court found there was sufficient evidence to find a violation of the enticement statute under a totality of the circumstances, particularly considering the defendant's statement that the hysterical girl looked "like she could read my mind like she knew what I wanted to do to her later.”
However, the Court agreed that 710.10(4) would serve to allow a jury to infer an intent to entice even absent aggravating circumstances whenever someone would speak to a minor without permission, and so struck down the entire statute as unconstitutional, both in fact and as applied to the defendant.
OBLIGATORY BLOG COMMENTARY:
Right legal conclusion, but I still think all females will want to avoid anywhere that this guy hangs out. Creepy at best.
Feed Me, Seymour
Fitz-Hume from Begging the Question blogs on the prevalance of RSS feeds and how they might influence the design and content of popular blogs. I personally do a hybrid - I use the RSS to eliminate the "doh" factor of having a VP walk in to discover me eating lunch at my desk when I've actually got 30 different screens of Internet Explorer open to read all the blogs. I've even downloaded the notifier, which lets me know someone's updated. I scan through for stories I'm interested in, then open the blog in a new window to read them. Advantage: far fewer windows, immediate notification, you can stop when you've finished with the new stuff rather than keep scrolling until you hit something you remember. Disadvantage: You can miss something scrolling like that, Nobody probably knows it's me visiting their site anymore since I don't register as having been referred from Random Mentality, and there are a few holdouts that still don't have RSS (*cough* Iowa Libertarian / CopTalk *cough*) and so I don't get the update on them as often, and as Fitz-Hume points out, you miss all the little graphics and such. I don't think this is going to lead to the demise of all but plain-vanilla content-driven posts, 'cause you still have the "cool factor" when somebody's done an interesting graphic or has a pretty layout. But the more people who don't bother to actually to to the blogs, the less cool stuff will be in evidence.
Just a Suggestion
Links galore to Booker/Fanfan news: SCOTUS broke the story on the decision here, Talk Left summarizes it here, and How Appealing links to the .pdf of the full 124-page decision. According to what I've read so far, the US Supreme Court decided that a) the federal sentencing guidelines are NOT mandatory, but must be taken into consideration by the judge as a guide to congressional intent; and b) juries, not judges, should generally determine the factual basis for sentencing enhancements (such as whether the defendant used a weapon). That will solve a lot of situations such as this one I blogged on in November:
As I indicated in an earlier post, even with a pro-prosecution slant, I feel the federal sentencing guidelines were getting way out of control, as evidenced by this statement:
Okay, and capital punishment would cut recidivism to zero but it's still a really bad idea.
NOTE:
Forgot to make mention of a couple of facts: 1) That one of the contributing bloggers on Talk Left represented the defendant in Booker, as seen on that site's link; and 2)Justice Stevens actually cites to a DOJ memo on Professor Berman's blog in footnote 4 on page 7 of his partial dissent (page 63 overall, at least how my Adobe reads it). Blogs getting cited in US Supreme Court opinions. Cool. Milbarge pointed out that link.
FACTS: Defendant dealt marijuana, made three controlled buys of $350 apiece. In some of those he carried, but didn't threaten with or use, a firearm. When they searched his and his girlfriend's residences, there were other firearms found. The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines: to put him away for 55 years or so. First real offense. No discretion. The judge was particularly affronted by the fact that a child rapist or pornographer, or someone who actually shot somebody during a single drug buy, would get a lighter sentence (See Table 1 in the decision).
As I indicated in an earlier post, even with a pro-prosecution slant, I feel the federal sentencing guidelines were getting way out of control, as evidenced by this statement:
Years ago, Chief Judge James L. Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and I, as chief judge of the Eighth Circuit, sponsored a sentencing institute. At that institute, I asked the chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission why an 18-year-old who had received some drugs by mail for a friend should face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, under the commission's federal sentencing guidelines set by the commission. The chairman responded that because this teenager would be in prison during his 20's, the age when the likelihood of recidivism is greatest, the sentence would cut down on re-arrests."
Okay, and capital punishment would cut recidivism to zero but it's still a really bad idea.
NOTE:
Forgot to make mention of a couple of facts: 1) That one of the contributing bloggers on Talk Left represented the defendant in Booker, as seen on that site's link; and 2)Justice Stevens actually cites to a DOJ memo on Professor Berman's blog in footnote 4 on page 7 of his partial dissent (page 63 overall, at least how my Adobe reads it). Blogs getting cited in US Supreme Court opinions. Cool. Milbarge pointed out that link.
Scary, Scary
I'm convinced that this is what comes of having way too many blogs devoted to knitting.
Link from Dave Barry. At least he's still blogging.
Link from Dave Barry. At least he's still blogging.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Science Project or PorkForest?
I think this editorial in today's PC is a tad more subtle in it's support of the fake rainforest in Iowa, in that it doesn't mention the project at all. Instead it equates questioning the fiscal viability of pork projects with a desire to return to medieval biological theory:
It's an interesting extrapolation, but doesn't bear up under close scrutiny. The "implication" is not that we should sacrifice research to education. To take the specific case of the fake rainforest in Coralville, we simply wish serious scientists would conduct your research at already-existing fake rainforests, like the one in England, in Omaha, or elsewhere. Or perhaps make use of the few remaining real rainforests in South America. I think their economy could use a small boost and it would help save the planet far more than building yet another monstrosity along I-80. You might argue that these facilities are not qualified for the research you want to perform. Fine. Then build the fake rainforest onto an existing tourist draw, such as the San Diego Zoo, that might conceivably pull enough income to support it.
Your implication is that if we question the fiscal viability of specific construction projects such as an 18-story caterpillar building near a relatively small rural community, which billed as a major tourist attraction that incidentally does research, we are advocating the cessation of all scientific progress. Talk about a leap in logic.
Public enthusiasm for university professors conducting research in addition to teaching undergraduates seems to have hit a new low. Articles appear every week assailing "pork" projects, spendthrift boondoggles that are generally defined as such because a writer thinks the research topic sounds ridiculous. The implication is that if university faculty members stopped doing research, and particularly if we stopped asking for tax-supported funding for it, we could focus on what really counts: the education of America's children. . . .
But let's go back to my question of what to teach if research is halted. No re-search means no new discoveries. That in turn means we can just keep teaching the same facts again and again. I could rely on the re-search of the past few centuries, at least. I wouldn't have to teach that everything in the universe is made of earth, air, water and fire, or that a wandering uterus makes women mentally unstable, or that gastric ulcers are caused by stress rather than bacterial infections -- all ideas that new research eventually overturned.
It's an interesting extrapolation, but doesn't bear up under close scrutiny. The "implication" is not that we should sacrifice research to education. To take the specific case of the fake rainforest in Coralville, we simply wish serious scientists would conduct your research at already-existing fake rainforests, like the one in England, in Omaha, or elsewhere. Or perhaps make use of the few remaining real rainforests in South America. I think their economy could use a small boost and it would help save the planet far more than building yet another monstrosity along I-80. You might argue that these facilities are not qualified for the research you want to perform. Fine. Then build the fake rainforest onto an existing tourist draw, such as the San Diego Zoo, that might conceivably pull enough income to support it.
Your implication is that if we question the fiscal viability of specific construction projects such as an 18-story caterpillar building near a relatively small rural community, which billed as a major tourist attraction that incidentally does research, we are advocating the cessation of all scientific progress. Talk about a leap in logic.
How About Something by Britney?
Then we can all run screaming for the borders.State 29 points out this editorial in the Quad City Times:
There’s nothing wrong with the State of Iowa that can’t be fixed with a good song. Never the mind that we are going into the new year with a few million bucks on the short side. What we need is something to pep us up. Or something romantic, so the kids won’t run away to the big cities...
Monday, January 10, 2005
I Stand Corrected, Greenman
The funeral went fairly well, except for one minor incident involving another aunt, this time on my Dad's side of the family, passing out and needing EMT's at a restaurant during the post-wake dinner. She was so white that for a moment I thought she'd had a stroke and we'd be making it a double event. Geez. So yesterday I'm talking with Greenman and I make some joke about at least things can't get to much worse - I've only so many relatives left, you know. His response: he'd rather see me say 'Macbeth' onstage than say that, it always leads to badness. So I knock on wood and throw a pinch of salt over my shoulder and shrug it off. So I get home to find out another relative is out of a job, and wake up to discover my propane tank ran out overnight and the house is freezing. Guess I won't be using that phrase anymore.
50 Book Challenge
Milbarge at Begging the Question haS started the 50 Book Challenge, so I've decided to succumb to the peer pressure. Unfortunately, this is really not going to impress my friends or influence people - the intellectual level of my reading material is generally inversely proportionate to how much thinking I have to do in "real life." Case in point: right after I took the bar exam, I bought my first and only big, fat historical romance book. I didn't have to think for about six hours.
Right now, I'm on a Ludlum kick - but only the old stuff, not the "Covert One" ghostauthored stuff, or titles that miraculously continue to appear long after his death in 2001. I'll probably bend the rule for the last of the Bourne series, but check it out from the library rather than spend the cash.
So yesterday I finished the Bourne Ultimatum and today I started the Scarlatti Inheritance. I've finished a few other things since the beginning of the year, but they were re-reads, which I'm not going to count.
My thoughts: Ultimatum is the typical Bourne stuff, but like most sequels fails to live up to the original. By the end of the book, all I really wanted was for that d*mn jackal to die already so I could go to bed. Ludlum relied even more heavily than usual on coincidences, making much of the plot even more unrealistic than the first two books. And I got so tired of the dialogue in Bourne's head: "No, go away David, I can't listen to you!" But it was as misapplied as it was liberally applied - several times the author had the "Bourne" character shocked at some loss of life or twisted corrupt mechanation that should've been second nature to that part of the character. Scarlatti appears more interesting and original off the bat, it will be interesting to see if Ludlum's writing started out great and went for a long slide downhill, or followed more of a bell curve.
BTW - as a disclaimer, I should admit that this "challenge" to me is actually like having a doctor prescribing more chocolate, french fries, bakery-fresh bread and tasty alcoholic beverages. Not going to be so hard, I'm afraid, except for remembering to blog them as I go.
Right now, I'm on a Ludlum kick - but only the old stuff, not the "Covert One" ghostauthored stuff, or titles that miraculously continue to appear long after his death in 2001. I'll probably bend the rule for the last of the Bourne series, but check it out from the library rather than spend the cash.
So yesterday I finished the Bourne Ultimatum and today I started the Scarlatti Inheritance. I've finished a few other things since the beginning of the year, but they were re-reads, which I'm not going to count.
My thoughts: Ultimatum is the typical Bourne stuff, but like most sequels fails to live up to the original. By the end of the book, all I really wanted was for that d*mn jackal to die already so I could go to bed. Ludlum relied even more heavily than usual on coincidences, making much of the plot even more unrealistic than the first two books. And I got so tired of the dialogue in Bourne's head: "No, go away David, I can't listen to you!" But it was as misapplied as it was liberally applied - several times the author had the "Bourne" character shocked at some loss of life or twisted corrupt mechanation that should've been second nature to that part of the character. Scarlatti appears more interesting and original off the bat, it will be interesting to see if Ludlum's writing started out great and went for a long slide downhill, or followed more of a bell curve.
BTW - as a disclaimer, I should admit that this "challenge" to me is actually like having a doctor prescribing more chocolate, french fries, bakery-fresh bread and tasty alcoholic beverages. Not going to be so hard, I'm afraid, except for remembering to blog them as I go.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
More Pledge Litigation
Saw on How Appealing that Michael Newdow has refiled his pledge case, this time with reinforcements. He's also filed a complaint to stop any prayers from being said at the Presidential inaugeration. Regarding the revised pledge case, I'd have thought it would be stronger to file as attorney for those people with standing, rather than including your own name as plaintiff and raising the issue again. Methinks he likes the limelight a tad. For those with Adobe, the .pdf version of the complaint is here.
Bad Writing
Skimming posts in the Legal Underground, I came across this bit about legal fiction. It's an interesting post, but this caught my attention:
Okay, that's disgusting. I understand that you don't want to use old, standby, worn cliches, but geez. In my personal opinions, cliches are like the "she said" of fiction, most of us are so familiar with them we read right over them. They aren't the hallmark of brilliant writing, but neither will they tank your narrative like the "original" metaphor used here - unless you overuse them, in which case you deserve to be laughed at.
So if you must use a metaphor, try to make up something brilliant and non-disgusting. If not, use the standby.
Please.
Lesson 4: Lawyers shouldn't write about sex. Most authors suggest that sex has taken place at some point but don't go into details. When I was 12 years old, that would have been disapppointing, but now, after reading a book by Robert K. Tanenbaum, I don't mind. Tanenbaum, a former NYC ADA and mayor of Beverly Hills, is guilty of the most horrific sexual metaphor I've ever read in a serious novel - "he sank into her like a pipe wrench sinking into a warm crock of chili."
Okay, that's disgusting. I understand that you don't want to use old, standby, worn cliches, but geez. In my personal opinions, cliches are like the "she said" of fiction, most of us are so familiar with them we read right over them. They aren't the hallmark of brilliant writing, but neither will they tank your narrative like the "original" metaphor used here - unless you overuse them, in which case you deserve to be laughed at.
So if you must use a metaphor, try to make up something brilliant and non-disgusting. If not, use the standby.
Please.
Light Blogging
You Go, Girl
From today's Press-Citizen:
Acknowledge local theater
As a member of this community and a supporter of community programs, I find disturbing how we've allowed the Englert Theatre board to brush aside the very people who have supported it. For almost a year now, it has been a struggle for the Iowa City Commun-ity Theater to get recognition for the large donation it made to the Englert and for the words of promise that were given to them. Many people in this community donated to the Englert be-cause we were foolishly led to think the community theater was to be the resident theater company of the Englert.
I only vent because I have seen how hard it is for the theater to make ends meet. They are troopers through all of this, have really had their hopes up for the last few years and have worked hard to raise money for the Englert.
Yet, if they describe themselves as possessing "selflessness" and "thankful"-ness, where is Iowa City Community Theater's rec-ognition?
I suppose that unless someone who has invested in this Englert steps up and says how he feels and demand his money back, the Iowa City Community Theater's struggle has all been in vain.
Jessica Aimone
Iowa City
Upperclass Twit of the Year
I've got to concur with Wonkette on this one. The Washington Post featured a first person story on the tsunami from Michael Dobbs, who was vacationing on his own private island in the area at the time. His humor and apparent inability to comprehend the magnitude of the situation was not in the best taste:
The charms of post-tsunami Taprobane were magnificent until you ran out of stilton and champagne. Nice.
The paper then featured an open chat with him online, and he again came off as quite full of himself. Someone asked if he'd considered his story came off as more than insipid, given the vast poverty just outside the gates of his own private paradise.
I liked Wonkette's translation of his response:
There were 15 of us gathered around the dinner table, from four continents, celebrating Christmas on a fantasy private island in the Indian Ocean -- with nothing but sea separating us from the South Pole, the Seychelles and Sumatra.
We handed out presents, ate turkey and Brussels sprouts hand-carried from distant lands, drank a lot of wine and champagne, wore funny paper hats and read silly jokes from Christmas crackers. Hoots of laughter greeted my brother Geoffrey as he instructed us how to slice the Stilton cheese he had brought with him from England. On no account must the Stilton be dug into with a spoon, he insisted.
. . .
The first few hours after the disaster seem almost unreal. My brother was worried about his other properties along the coast -- and we were all in a kind of trance. At one point, a helicopter hovered overhead, looking for survivors. "What they don't know is that we are all down here, eating Stilton," cracked one of the Aussies. Shortly afterward, another Australian girl began suffering excruciating stomach pains, and was taken by car to Colombo, where she was operated on for a burst appendix. (Our most serious casualty, she is now recovering in Sydney.) The Aussies all had cell phones, which soon came alive with text messages from Perth and Bangkok and Los Angeles. "Merry Christmas, I am on my yacht eating prawns and drinking champagne," read one of the messages. "Sure beats our uneventful Christmas," read another.
. . .
We had succumbed so greatly to the charms of life on Taprobane that we found it difficult to tear ourselves away. But by Monday, it became obvious that we would have to leave: There was no water or electricity, and the Christmas leftovers were getting rancid."
The charms of post-tsunami Taprobane were magnificent until you ran out of stilton and champagne. Nice.
The paper then featured an open chat with him online, and he again came off as quite full of himself. Someone asked if he'd considered his story came off as more than insipid, given the vast poverty just outside the gates of his own private paradise.
I liked Wonkette's translation of his response:
| Dobbs says | Dobbs means |
| You are right in pointing to the huge contrast between our experiences and the experiences of many other people, including most of the local population. | I am ignoring your question. |
| Like many natural disasters, this one took the biggest toll on the weakest and poorest sectors of the community, particularly children and women. | Or so I've heard. |
| In today's article and one I wrote on the day of the tsunami, however, I tried to describe what it was like to experience the tsunami from the vantage point of one middle-class American family. | I believe that your average American family owns its own island. I am a complete fuckwad. |
| I and other Post reporters have done our best to describe the experiences of those who were less fortunate. | We did have to eat Stilton without spoons, you know. |
Twit.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Auditions - Reminder!
On a side note, auditions for Hedda Gabler with the Iowa City Community Theatre are tonight and Wednesday night at 7:00 at the Iowa City Rec Center. It's a complex piece with a lot to offer actors who like to delve into character. The scoop:
From the ICCT website:
When Oscar Wilde first saw Hedda Gabler in 1890, he said, "I felt pity and terror, as though the play had been Greek." Compared to Ibsen's earlier plays, Hedda Gabler was different. In this play, we find some of Ibsen's most memorable prose in a tragic interplay of psychological and linguistic drama. Ibsen was the founder of modern prose drama, known for his political and social commentaries. His plays were filled with realistic portrayals of women and their troubles in modern society. His tragedies were about ordinary people, and Hedda Gabler is one of his most memorable heroines!
The Iowa City Community Theatre announces
auditions for
HEDDA GABLER
By Henrik Ibsen. Adapted by Jon Robin Baiz
Directed by Matt Brewbaker
Tuesday, January 4 and Wednesday January 5,
2005 at 7:00pm
Robert A. Lee Recreation Center
Production dates: March 4 - March 20, 2005
Perusal scripts are available at the
Iowa City Public Library
If you wish to audition
but cannot attend these dates,
please contact director Matthew Brewbaker
at (319) 337-5464
auditions for
HEDDA GABLER
By Henrik Ibsen. Adapted by Jon Robin Baiz
Directed by Matt Brewbaker
Tuesday, January 4 and Wednesday January 5,
2005 at 7:00pm
Robert A. Lee Recreation Center
Production dates: March 4 - March 20, 2005
Perusal scripts are available at the
Iowa City Public Library
If you wish to audition
but cannot attend these dates,
please contact director Matthew Brewbaker
at (319) 337-5464
From the ICCT website:
When Oscar Wilde first saw Hedda Gabler in 1890, he said, "I felt pity and terror, as though the play had been Greek." Compared to Ibsen's earlier plays, Hedda Gabler was different. In this play, we find some of Ibsen's most memorable prose in a tragic interplay of psychological and linguistic drama. Ibsen was the founder of modern prose drama, known for his political and social commentaries. His plays were filled with realistic portrayals of women and their troubles in modern society. His tragedies were about ordinary people, and Hedda Gabler is one of his most memorable heroines!
Commercial Speech in the DM News
I always hate it when editorials misstate legal precepts. This article in the Des Moines Register discusses a billboard that's gone up recently to advertise a local strip club. The article states:
Hmm. . . not so much.
Even if the author had no legal knowledge, a quick thought or two should've tipped them off that the analysis was a tad more complex. If there were no restrictions on advertising content unless it's illegal, why is it you don't see cigarettes advertised on television?
Commercial speech is traditionally afforded less protection than other speech under the first amendment. As stated in METROMEDIA, INC. v. SAN DIEGO, 453 U.S. 490 (1981):
The seminal case discussing advertising speech and the first amendment remains CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). In it, the Court held:
It then adopted a four-part test for determining the validity of government restrictions on commercial speech as distinguished from more fully protected speech:
The test isn't "if it's not illegal, it must be valid." If the subject matter isn't illegal, the government can still regulate it if it shows a substantial interest and the regulation is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Could the test work to prohibit the billboard in Des Moines? It depends. Does it present a traffic hazard - have accidents been caused by motorists slamming on the brakes to get a better look at the crotch shot? If so, could you tailor a regulation so narrowly as to accomplish only the avoidance of a traffic hazard? Another possibility is to prohibit billboards altogether through zoning ordinances or state law, Metromedia involved just such a case.
The "vice" cases are more rare and more difficult. A recent example I dug up was 44 LIQUORMART, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND. There, the government tried to ban all advertising of alcohol pricing, attempting to justify the prohibition based on the the "promotion of temperance." The Court didn't buy it:
Thus, in order for Des Moines to ban the billboard as a "vice" leading to promiscuity, degeneration of the neighborhood, corruption of children, etc., it would have to acquire concrete evidence that the billboard would lead directly to those problems. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think such evidence exists.
That, in a simplified nutshell, is the reason why the billboard will likely be left alone. For what it's worth, here's the pic:
The city has received complaints since the sign went up. But the government cannot - and should not - do anything. The city regulates aspects such as sign location and construction. The Iowa Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over signs viewable from a highway, but can take issue with the content only if it's advertising something illegal. If the women on the sign were actually naked, the ad could be violating state obscenity laws.
Rightly, that's as far as government can reach.
Hmm. . . not so much.
Even if the author had no legal knowledge, a quick thought or two should've tipped them off that the analysis was a tad more complex. If there were no restrictions on advertising content unless it's illegal, why is it you don't see cigarettes advertised on television?
Commercial speech is traditionally afforded less protection than other speech under the first amendment. As stated in METROMEDIA, INC. v. SAN DIEGO, 453 U.S. 490 (1981):
The extension of First Amendment protections to purely commercial speech is a relatively recent development in First Amendment jurisprudence. Prior to 1975, purely commercial advertisements of services or goods for sale were considered to be outside the protection of the First Amendment.
The seminal case discussing advertising speech and the first amendment remains CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). In it, the Court held:
"The Constitution . . . accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression. The protection available for a particular commercial expression turns on the nature both of the expression and of the governmental interests served by its regulation."
It then adopted a four-part test for determining the validity of government restrictions on commercial speech as distinguished from more fully protected speech:
(1) The First Amendment protects commercial speech only if that speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. A restriction on otherwise protected commercial speech is valid only if it
(2) seeks to implement a substantial governmental interest,
(3) directly advances that interest, and
(4) reaches no further than necessary to accomplish the given objective.
The test isn't "if it's not illegal, it must be valid." If the subject matter isn't illegal, the government can still regulate it if it shows a substantial interest and the regulation is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Could the test work to prohibit the billboard in Des Moines? It depends. Does it present a traffic hazard - have accidents been caused by motorists slamming on the brakes to get a better look at the crotch shot? If so, could you tailor a regulation so narrowly as to accomplish only the avoidance of a traffic hazard? Another possibility is to prohibit billboards altogether through zoning ordinances or state law, Metromedia involved just such a case.
The "vice" cases are more rare and more difficult. A recent example I dug up was 44 LIQUORMART, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND. There, the government tried to ban all advertising of alcohol pricing, attempting to justify the prohibition based on the the "promotion of temperance." The Court didn't buy it:
"In evaluating the ban's effectiveness in advancing the State's interest, we note that a commercial speech regulation "may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose." Central Hudson, 447 U.S., at 564 . For that reason, the State bears the burden of showing not merely that its regulation will advance its interest, but also that it will do so "to a material degree." Edenfield, 507 U.S., at 771 ; see also Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S., at ___ (slip op., at 8-9). The need for the State to make such a showing is particularly great given the drastic nature of its chosen means - the wholesale suppression of truthful, nonmisleading information. Accordingly, we must determine whether the State has shown that the price advertising ban will significantly reduce alcohol consumption.
We can agree that common sense supports the conclusion that a prohibition against price advertising, like a collusive agreement among competitors to refrain from such advertising, 15 will tend to mitigate competition and maintain prices at a higher level than would prevail in a completely free market. Despite the absence of proof on the point, we can even agree with the State's contention that it is reasonable to assume that demand, and hence consumption throughout the market, is somewhat lower whenever a higher, noncompetitive price level prevails. However, without any findings of fact, or indeed any evidentiary support whatsoever, we cannot agree with the assertion that the price advertising ban will significantly advance the State's interest in promoting temperance. [ 44 LIQUORMART, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 18]
Although the record suggests that the price advertising ban may have some impact on the purchasing patterns of temperate drinkers of modest means, 829 F. Supp., at 546, the State has presented no evidence to suggest that its speech prohibition will significantly reduce market-wide consumption. 16 Indeed, the District Court's considered and uncontradicted finding on this point is directly to the contrary. Id., at 549. 17 Moreover, the evidence suggests that the abusive drinker will probably not be deterred by a marginal price increase, and that the true alcoholic may simply reduce his purchases of other necessities."
Thus, in order for Des Moines to ban the billboard as a "vice" leading to promiscuity, degeneration of the neighborhood, corruption of children, etc., it would have to acquire concrete evidence that the billboard would lead directly to those problems. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think such evidence exists.
That, in a simplified nutshell, is the reason why the billboard will likely be left alone. For what it's worth, here's the pic:
Monday, January 03, 2005
Back to Legal Blogging
I seriously hope there's more to this story:
A judge has refused to grant a divorce to a pregnant woman trying to leave her husband two years after he was jailed for beating her, ruling instead that she must wait until the child is born.
Shawnna Hughes' husband was convicted of abuse in 2002. She separated from him after the attack and filed for divorce last April. She later became pregnant by another man and is due in March.
Her husband, Carlos, never contested the divorce, and the court commissioner approved it in October. But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.
"There's a lot of case law that says it is important in this state that children not be illegitimized," Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine told The Spokesman-Review newspaper on Thursday.
Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer, said nothing in state law says a pregnant woman cannot get a divorce.
"We don't live in 15th-century England," said Sloyer, who has appealed.
Under Washington state law, a husband is presumed to be the father of any child born within 300 days of a divorce. The judge argued that the paternity of the child needs to be determined before a divorce can be finalized.
Couldn't Resist
via Theresa:
You Are Sophisticated SexyYou're a classy woman, and you carry yourself with grace. Most men are in awe of you, and even a bit intimidated by you. You always make sure you're looking great, from head to toe. And your charm and wit gets you on the good side of everyone you meet. What Kind of Sexy Are You? Take This Quiz :-) |  |
There is a Season
When I was a small child, I was very fond of my aunt Candy, one of my mother's two sisters. I thought she was quite cool, the way she would play with us. It wasn't until I got older that I figured out she related to my three-year-old mind so well because she possessed one herself due to cerebal palsy. She delighted in playing with kids her "own age" and had the special type of kind heart that sometimes seems reserved for those who are never able to grow up. One of the hardest parts of my mom's death was for my uncle to explain to Candy that their sister was gone and wouldn't be home for Christmas. She started going through the photo album and pointing to the rest of us and asking whether we were still alive. Despite that, she kept her delight in the season. When we got to Chicago for Christmas brunch, she lit up brighter than the bulbs on the tree, wishing us all a Merry Christmas. I got her one of those Scooby Doo talking books with a microphone and buttons to push for sound effects, and she spent a good part of the morning on at the piano with Ellen singing Christmas carols with a blithe disregard for tempo and tune but an infectious spirit that kept us all from dwelling on the recent tragedy of my mom's death. As always, she couldn't wait for the food, the turkey and pie that she was able to adore without the adult guilt over calories or her somewhat-expanding figure.
This morning, I was informed that Candy suffered heart failure overnight and passed away. I feel rather numb about the whole thing, it was utterly unexpected. We've got a biopsy for my Dad scheduled this week, among other things, and it's a scramble to get plans in order. But most of all I miss her, the one who came to Christmas without any regard for the problems or pains we've all been through. She may have been a handful, but in a way it was her spirit that took care of all of us this year.
This morning, I was informed that Candy suffered heart failure overnight and passed away. I feel rather numb about the whole thing, it was utterly unexpected. We've got a biopsy for my Dad scheduled this week, among other things, and it's a scramble to get plans in order. But most of all I miss her, the one who came to Christmas without any regard for the problems or pains we've all been through. She may have been a handful, but in a way it was her spirit that took care of all of us this year.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
2005 Dead Pool Picks
Here they are, for better or worse:
Rosa Parks, Civil Rights Leader: February 4, 1913
Dick Clark, Host of American Bandstand: November 30, 1929
Pope John Paul II, Leader of Catholic Church: May 18, 1920
Jerry Lewis, Actor and Entertainer: March 16, 1926
Wilford Brimley, Actor: September 27, 1934
Elizabeth Taylor, Actor: February 27, l932,
Phyllis Diller, Actor: July 17, 1917
William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court: October 1, 1924
Nancy Reagan, Former First Lady of the US: July 6, 1921
Wendie Jo Sperber, Actress: September 15, 1962
Boris Yeltsin, Former President of Russia: February 1, 1931
Art Linkletter, TV Personality: July 17, 1912
James Brown, Singer: May 3, 1933
Robert Downey Jr., Actor: April 4, 1965
Courtney Love, Singer: February 20, 1967
Follow along with the morbid conversation and see who comes out with the most scarily accurate grim reaper picks at The Dead Pool.
Does anybody know who won the referral prize, anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)