Codex Ivstianvs

Why, hello. Fancy seeing you here.

Emperor tropique du cancer toucan beak

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Ah...MSNBC...the worst network in the world.

Well, it's not the worst network...there are worse. But MSNBC cancelled Donahue's show when it was the highest rated program on it's network, because it was too liberal. From the New York Times:
Mr. Donahue's show had been growing slightly over the past few months, and he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC, even the channel's signature prime-time program "Hardball With Chris Matthews." Mr. Matthews's show has averaged 413,000 viewers over the last month.
And now I hear that they are cancelling Keith Olbermann, Who is also the highest rated show on the network. You see, liberals won't suport a news show, so you have to cancel it to get more conservatives because they don't have a network to watch. I mean if liberals liked watching shows geared toward them then Comedy Central wouldn't have cancelled Jon Stewart in 1999 and HBO would have hired Bill Maher, Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been the highest grossing documentary of all time, and Keith Olbermann would have been the highest rated show on your network...oh wait...shit!


Read more

It's everybody's favorite show! "Angry Citizen Movie Theatre"

When this movie is shown on cable, it will be one of those transcendant moments in Cinema like Birth of a Nation or The Jazz Singer, except...you know...not a horrible racist spectacle--just a great movie. So it's going to be my new favorite. I can already tell.

"This is a horror story because most of the characters are Republicans," director Joe Dante announced before the November 13 world premiere of his latest movie, Homecoming, at the Turin Film Festival. Republicans, as it happens, will be the ones who find Homecoming's agitprop premise scariest: In an election year, dead veterans of the current conflict crawl out of their graves and stagger single-mindedly to voting booths so they can eject the president who sent them to fight a war sold on "horseshit and elbow grease."
...
"You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what a fucking mess we're in," he continues. "It's been happening steadily for the past four years, and nobody said peep. The New York Times and all these people that abetted the lies and crap that went into making and selling this war—now that they see the guy is a little weak, they're kicking him with their toe to make sure he doesn't bite back. It's cowardly. This pitiful zombie movie, this fucking B movie, is the only thing anybody's done about this issue that's killed 2,000 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis? It's fucking sick." While gratified by the warm reception to Homecoming in Turin, Dante says he's eager for the right-wing punditocracy back home to see it: "I hope this movie bothers a lot of people that disagree with it—and that it makes them really pissed off, as pissed off as the rest of us are."

When the Dolphins come, with their cephalopod shock troops, will you be able to say that you stood with our patriotic dissident zombie troops as they righted wrongs and made us strong to fight the Menace From the Deep? Or will you have stood against them?


Read more

Monday, November 28, 2005

Immigration

I'm watching Bush's immigration speech from my one-time home of Tucson. While I support a guest worker program in theory, I am affraid that Bush's plan does more harm than good. So far as I can tell, he supports a reduction in the due process for immigrants, which is just bad since immigrants who do fight in court tend to have legitimate claims (those that don't tend to just never show up for court if they can help it). And the vague outlines of the guest worker plan that I can catch in the speech seem to be less of an informal amnesty based on residence in exchange for making sure the immigrant in question is working than it is a way to ensure that new immigrants will be kept in a precarious guest worker limbo rather than on the road to citizenship and thus vulnerable to predatory employer exploitation. Immigrants--not all of them, just the illegal, largely agricultural workers coming in under the radar--would be able to apply for three-year worker permits after two of which they would have to return to their country of origin.
There are only really two reasons for letting people stay temporarily conditioned on employment without simply letting them become citizens (which would be the dreaded amnesty that conservatives hate so much):
1) The racist argument--which, I assure you is more prevalent than you are likely comfortable knowing--that these "sorts" of people simply shouldn't be allowed to become Americans because they are shiftless and lazy and temprementally incompatable with the signal virtues of United-States-ness. Seriously, a lot of the people you heard clapping and cheering during odd and inappropriate parts of Bush's speach hold this view, though they won't admit it in mixed company. Not a few congressmen think this way.
2) The exploitative argument that says that we need cheap labor and the best place to get it is south of the border. This needs to be seperated from the more legitimate argument that immigrant groups traditionally do undesirable labor that happens to be cheap. The exploitative argument says that economically marginal groups are useful for that exact reason; that we don't need new Americans to climb the ladder and contribute but that we should maintain a population of people who are economically unstable for the purpose of doing things on the cheap. This is--in my view--a shitty argument. While new immigrants do jobs that are largely undesirable, they deserve to paid a living wage, like everybody else in America.

The temporary worker program that Bush outlined today would keep people marginal, not giving them enough tme to become citizens before they are sent back to their native coutnries to reapply for another three years of guest worker status. And even guest worker status isn't going to guarantee that employers won't pray on immigrants and pay them illegally low wages. Any number of laws to that effect don't stop predatory employers now.

You want to stop illegal immigration? Stop the demand. Demand significantly higher penalties for employing illegals. You have to look at the incentive sttructure here. On the one hand is a poor dude from Oaxaca who can't find work at a lumber-mill or coffee plantation, or his village has been burned out by paramilitaries in Guatemala and he has nowhere else to go. On the other hand is the owner of a textile warehouse or a cleaning agency in Riverside or Laredo. Which of these people is a) in a position to make considered employment choices as a business desicion, b) in a position to bear the cost of complying with the law, and c) has anything to lose and thus is deterrable? If you answered the business owner to all three, then you are right and you now understand why being so concerned about the illegals instead of the people that hire them is silly. Historical information will confirm that undocumented workers will respond to the market--though imperfectly. I recommend Lorey's The U.S.-Mexican Border in the Twentieth Century as a great starter with a good bibliography to work off of.

There are all kinds of really good reasons to secure the border, but keeping out immigrants isn't one of them. Keeping control on who many immigrants we have is fine. But I'm telling you that the fact that there are as many as 8 to 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country means that we probably need that many and so we shouldn't act like they are a drain. And as far as the "tax-payers are footing the bill for healthcare when these people have to go to the hospital" argument I would mention that there are 45 million Americans without healthcare that are full citizens that you are paying for too; and again, if we let the undocumented millions become citizens they could negotiate healthcare from employers or buy their own insurance.

As far as I can tell, letting men and women come here to make a new life, especially since the majority of them are willing to work herculean feets of labor when they get here to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and they never ask for handouts, well that sounds like a conservative American wet-dream. So I'm generally left with the fact that deep down a lot of people are just kind of bigotted. Why else would you oppose low cost solutions that would increase the number of Americans and the health of our workforce, while endorsing high cost plans that haven't been successful in their many incarnations over the last 40 years?


Read more

Sunday, November 27, 2005

you can try, but it don't make no difference. you are either clean or you aren't

Time and again I tell myself: I’ll stay clean tonight. But the little green wheels are following me. Oh no, not again, I’m stuck with a valuable friend. I’m happy, hope you’re happy too. One flash of light but no smoking pistol.
I never done good things, I never done bad things, I never did anything out of the blue, want an axe to break the ice, wanna come down right now.
Ashes to ashes, fuck to fucking--we know Major Tom’s a junkie. He's strung out in heaven’s high and he's hitting an all-time low.


Read more

Saturday, November 26, 2005

I have removed myself...

...To Pescespada Island, which is somwhere in the Indonesicific Ocean. Where we listened to David Bowie and Gao Gilberto. And damn the acrid taste of wine and not enough cigarettes. We'll have to dip into the Good Stuff. Fortunately my manservant Klaus has the complete works of Thomas Malfort's early naval works (whose first, sventh, and third novels I haven't read--because they don't exist) and a stock of fine tobacky.


Read more

Please Excuse the Absence But...

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go on an overnight drunk and, in ten days, I'm going to set out to find the shark that killed my friend, and destroy it.


Read more

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Thanksgiving

In honor of this American holliday (first proclaimed by my most favorite of American writers in 1863) let us revel in the myth and speak of a tale of New England independence told by one of the great independent New Englanders, Mr. Thoreau.

Ah, but it is not a tale of independence and the single sentence that betrays his claim to self sufficiency is what I want to look at today.

Near the end of March, 1845, I borrowed an axe and went down to the woods by Walden Pond, nearest to where I intended to build my house, and began to cut down some tall, arrowy white pines, still in their youth, for timber.

That is form the first chapter of Walden entitled "Economy" section C, paragraph 19.
What is it in that sentence that stands out? Our hero, disclaiming the egoism of the "I" but using it out of necessity left his father's pencil-making business and attended Harvard College under the patronage of a Mr. Emerson, of whom you must have heard tell. Henry never took a degree, but was a misanthrope and philosopher of the English Major type and learned his letter well. So what stands out of this early-modern Romantic transcendental man's own testiment to individual and self-sustaining life left to himself needing no others? He borrowed the axe! Even Thoreau needed another. It's the most important part of Walden, that he needed another to begin the project. That his writings should say something to us today is mete and well, but never lose sight that he participated, that he joined in the intercourse of friends and the commerce of acquaintances, that he first read Walden at the Concord, Mass Lycee and not in some lonely study far from the madding crowd. And that's what we should meditate on this Thanksgiving. To be a rebel, an individual, and/or the prototypical American outlaw is to be an American wholeheartedly and in full. What Thankgiving celebrates is our involvement with each other, with other cultures, with other nation, with other men and women. To come together in fellowship in the old ways of the feast is not a celebration of family alone, but of the many ways of being this unique creature that is American. For feast is not about eating, but about having enough for the new guests at table, no matter how many. It does not demonstrate our good fortune and wealth but the fecundity of the land and the generousity or our spirit to provide.

We share our tables, and the foods we eat are representative of the new produce of the New World. While we are alone in our pioneering, we are together in the fellowship of pioneers.

I know I speak of an America of the mind, of the book, and not the way we behave in reality. The difference is real here, between ideal and real culture. But I speak the way Thoreau did, and I ask us all to be better. That is the promise of the America, that is the promise of the individual who lives alone but borrows an axe, only to return it sharper. It is the promise of Thanksgiving. So I give thanks for Henry and his fraternal misanthropy. And I wish you and Happy Thanksgiving.


Read more

Friday, November 18, 2005

I renounce my faith

I have decided to convert to Robot Judaism. We believe that Robot Jesus was built, and that he was a very well programmed robot, but that he is not our messiah.


Read more

Griswold versus Lyon

In February of 1798 Rep. Griswold of Connecticut beat the holy hell out of Rep. Lyon of Vermont over a question of an insult. Griswold had been isulted, so he had called Lyon a coward the previous day, Lyon spit in Griswold's face. The next day came the beating, with a hickory walking stick.
I'm not saying that we should return to the honor culture of duels or anything (the way that culture treated women is itself a reason to stay far away from it's values). But the larger point was that while Congress is a deliberative body, you don't just call another member a coward or a traitor lest you want your head kicked in. If you want civility in politics, you have to maintain it yourself and not go around using fighting wors for political gain becouse your rhteorical skills fail otherwise.

Yesterday, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn) an Iraq hawk, and a conservative Democrat said that the troops should be brought home, that the war wasn't going as advertised, that the war was destabilizing the region, and that it was in general bad for America. Murtha is a 31 year verteran of the House, retire as a colonel in the USMC after 37 years of serviece including tours in Vietnam. He voted for the war resolution in 2002. Now the White House compares him to Michael Moore and says that he's advocating "surrender". And many Republican members of the House are saying that he dishonors the memory of the troops. The best is this little nugget from Rep. Geoff Davis (which I'm sure is just a coincidence), a Republican from Kentucky:
"I think it's important to understand the political climate in which these shameful statements have been made. Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, as well as Abu Musab Zarqawi, have made it quite clear in their internal propaganda that they cannot win unless they can drive the Americans out. And they know that they can't do that there, so they've brought the battlefield to the halls of Congress. And, frankly, the liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound, fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies." Did you get that last bit there? He said that Murtha is "cooperat[ing] with out enemies." Them's fightin' words.
Here's the thing. Number one: he should beat the holy hell out of Dennis Hastert and his far right fringe American-hating kind. Number Two: as the the Michael Moore comparison. The opinon that the war is fucked and that we need to pull out is not a fringe left opinion unless you think that the majority of Americans are on the fringe left. This kinds of silly insulting is what people do when they don't have an answer to your comments. Yeah, John Murtha, who has made a career out of service to the nation is trying to help the terrorists. What's up with all these dudes that love America so much that they hate most Americans?

At least out here on the fringe left we question our oponents ideas and their effectiveness in acheiving stated goals, not their loyalty to country.


Read more

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

WTF?

Alright, Kid Rock's on and...he can't sing. Seriously, he can't sing, there's no tune there, there's no change in the pitch of his voice. Now get ready to be really sad: Jerry Lee Lewis is playing piano and singing back up. Jerry Lee Lewis. You can actually hear his backing vocals going above and below the douchebag's. He is still a great piano player, he's still a great singer. Sure he married his 13 year old cousin. But that was...okay, I have no justification for that. But he's Jerry Lee Lewis! Let the man perform alone. Did they think Jerry Lee would make Kid Rock bearable? That's not how it works. Caviar don't make shit taste classy, shit makes caviar taste like shit. Also, all these cosmopolitan country acts straight from the Nashville factory labels that sound like Top 40 are exactly what pushed Johnny off the charts in the '70s only to return when the rock world embraced him in the 1990s (Nashville never came back to him in his lifetime). So screw that too. Allison Krauss though? She's superb, let's just have her do the whole show.

Update: Kris Kristoferson and Nora Jones are pretty good too. I mean, you gotta give it up for Bobby McGee himself.


Read more

Meh.

I'm three minutes into the Johnny Cash special on CBS. I'm already pretty fucking disappointed. Come to think of it, I don't hink I've ever like anything that has ever been on CBS so I don't know what I was expecting. I mean, I like an autoharp as much as the next guy, but not Sheryl Crow on an autoharp. I have to turn this off before Kid Rock comes on. Yes, Kid Rock. This makes me a sad panda.


Read more

Dude, this is not cool.

This is not cool at all. I don't know what the rules are exactly and I don't care, all I know is that lions are against the rules. There are no lions, lions are strictly forbidden. Every once in a while you think that it cant get worse. But it always does. I mean, we've already passed forced sodomy and entered the realm of lion-torture (which is nasty torture indeed). Next up is forced sodomy of a lion. I say we got three months max before we hear about forcing detainees to cut off a limb to free themselves. Like Saw and shit, because at this point we are "this" close to sociopathic serial killer as a nation. Seriously. Three months...max.


Read more

this is all kinds of deep.

Well, not deep exactly, but it's a perfectly good poem by Czeslaw Milosz with a perfectly good little flash animation by some dude on the internet.


Read more

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Words

I was watching Saving Private Ryan tonight. And it features a letter a man once wrote to a woman. Now, the letter was incorrect as to the number it concerns, that number was less. Two or three I think, not five. But the five has become as real as anything. It's words are magical. Despite the irony of the mixed-up number, there is no irony, here only the truth. See, words are magic. Giving things names and voice to names is what magic is, it is power over symbols and reality and all those bits in between. Magic. The two or three are five now, though thankfully not then. So in the spirit of a post I did not to long ago, and the post I did earlier on the rhetoric of liberty. I just wanted to hilight this bit from the man that I think was the greatest American writer ever. Ever.

Executive Mansion, Washington, November 21, 1864.

Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Massachusetts:

Dear Madam: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln


Read more

The rhetoric of liberty

I'm watching a panel on C-SPAN with Justices Kennedy, O'Conner, and Breyer in front of group of international jurists. Yes, I'm that lame. And Justice Kennedy was talking about the difference between The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as documents. He made a really good point about reading both of them. You can't really read the Constitution from beginning to end without your mind wandering to history and context and minutae. While you can read the Declaration from beginning to end without your mind wandering from the words in front of you. That gets to an important point about the nature of the two and the ways that one must engage them when reading and applying their principles to the world around you. The Declaration was designed for a particular rhetorical purpose, it's supposed to be read and it's supposed to make you angrier and angrier at the British Parliament. And it works. Hell, it worked. But the Constitution was written, was designed, to be mulled over, piece by piece. It require recourse to context and history. It must be considered, not simply read. The words must be integrated with the world around you. It must be so. A lot of inimitable people got together, wrote and ratified both. We must believe that these rhetorical difference in two documents are meant to be so. The Declaration is exactly that, a great yawlp of freedom (to borrow from Whitman). While the Constiution is an intellectual challenge: Here we set out these principles now go and use them as the crossbeams in the structure of a society to be build to the plan of liberty. It demands interpretation while the Declaration demands only attention. This leads to two different actions. The Declaration creates rebellion (which is a nice thing from time to time), while the Constitution creates civilization which is something to which we must pay continuing and evolving attention.


Read more

At least it's something to do...

Here at the UMLS we (under the capable leadership of Jay Surdukowski--you will hear his name in the future) are trying to get a Humanities Council going. It'll be an umbrella organization to oversee, plan, and fund events and bring the disparate attempts at bringing light into the dark coridors of Hutchins Hall under a single banner. So in that spirit I am going to share an unpublished open letter to my fellow law students that I wrote some time ago. It's long for a blog post, so bear with me. (And don't forget to read the many insightful posts further down.)

Dear Michigan Law Students,

So this is the intro paragraph where I speak to you of common values and experiences. This is where we establish a connection. It allows you to impute your own views to me; and more importantly, it allows me to slide my opinions down your throat like oysters on the half-shell, while you swallow and think that my opinions are really just your own ideas given voice in the pages before you.

Boy, Contracts is some hard class, huh?

Well, that’s out of the way and I feel better. Doubtless, you share my relief and know that we are now close. We are like confidants, or Golden Girls. Intelligences insulted all around, I turn to my piece.

Law school is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I’m learning a whole new way of thinking about and looking at the world. I’m exposed to classes and disciplines that I would never otherwise have encountered. (Honestly, who here would have actually chosen to learn about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?) But there is dark heart like the cosmic vacuum at the center of a black hole that resides inside the nether regions of law school, and this gaping Charybdis waits for us even as we sleep walk through another day of meetings, lectures, and reading assignments. Even (especially) for the kind and good-hearted this dark force gnaws on the spirit when you are distracted. It finds is utmost expression in the patent arrogance of the stereotype lawyer-joke attorney…a farce which is all too true. Finally we may be entrapped by a narcissism sprung from the feeling that our special training makes us superior through knowledge and earning power, as though those two things offer complete (and enviable) personhood. This attitude is inimical to the sentiment of connectivity that is essential to responsible professionalism. All of which is to say that law school makes some people become jerks, and often rewards further those that have come to it already as jerks.

At a certain point, we must no longer stand for it. Each and every one of us—I’ve always been fond of the phrase “every mother’s child”—has the spark of animating humanity that lives inside our (surely by now quite black) hearts amidst the filth, the fury, and the deadness. And that spark never goes out, but it does get pissed. After a time it is malnourished and neglected to such egregious extremes by the low protein diet of red-bound Aspen books and the damned UCC that the spark rebels against its host. That is you. (For those of you who are 1Ls that have not yet taken Contracts, you will come to know the UCC in your own time. Like Roman initiates into the mystery cult of Mithras you will learn both its rapturous secrets and its terrible, bloody demands of sacrifice...you will be members of our club—and I liked Contracts.) Imagine that your humanity is a heavy wool coat. You bought it a couple of years ago, it fits nicely, keeps you warm even when it gets wet and you almost look forward to the first snow so that you can wear it again. Law school is a very, very warm room full of coat hooks. My metaphor is unsubtle, I understand that; but it is apt.

There is a tendency to become your work in any profession. And each profession has its own extremes. Ethnographers “go native”; doctors begin to feel that they, personally, not the medicine, are healing; authors take book criticism harder than they should because the book has become an avatar for the self. The problem with lawyers is that the extreme transubstantiation with the job is common in every sense of the word. Lawyers and law students become deals and negotiations (cops, the lucky bastards, get to think that they are the law incarnate, long arm and all that). We become contentious pricks with little or nothing outside of the suit and the terms of the settlement agreement. Machines, mechanisms, and automatons we become, and it happens all the time. Hamlet refers to himself as a machine in his love letters to Ophelia. This is part of his madness. The coolly efficient is not to be aspired to on a personal level. People and personalities are not meant to become equitable remedies.

Make no mistake, I do not write this out of sympathy or a desire to (self)help. Oh, no. You see, I am, from time to time, filled with contempt for the law and law school. Also for myself as a law student (which is the most special kind of contempt…I recall learning that from a plucky animated snowman when I was a child). I think that it is a healthy contempt, a sensible balance to the fervor that engulfs us each in devotion to study. Admit it, you feel it too sometimes. Not irrational hatred but a tiny, disdainful voice saying, “You want me to write like I’m composing stereo instructions?” or “This dude over here, to your right, he sucks…no two ways about it.” And of course, “Oh good god, I cannot believe they just said that, and with such unmistakable conviction, too.”

The problem, so far as there is one, and so far as my poor interpretation matters, is that we are each one to another nothing more than the mute features of law school. We didn’t know each other before this and our conceptualizations of each other are formed entirely by this…place. From one to another we appear born, unbidden, from the Olympian forehead of UMLS, staring with contemptuous, haughty grey-eyed glares at all that is not duly adjudicated or comped by an interviewing firm.

Look around you. The walls are collapsing, the kingdom caves in, its power over you extends only so far as you give it. There is no spoon. And you are no the contents of your wallet. I understand the necessary primacy that law school takes in our lives, but only this moment, not to the exclusion of all others. Shut up about call backs, shut up about jobs, shut up about the Supreme Court, shut up about law firms and clerkships and Taft-Hartley. Don’t you see? Digging deeper and deeper into the law/self and finding nothing is no signal to continue the melancholy excavation of every last shred of goodness left in your ossified internal cavities. The retreat from life has no honor it. If you talk about law school, fine. I mean, Christ, it is the one thing we all have in common; and it demands time and energy for success. But if you cannot guarantee conversation at least 30% free of the law then zip it until you can. I know, I know, I do it too, see above about the self-contempt. You should watch reruns of the Gilmore Girls and learn from them. Sit at the Girls’ feet and see the true beauty of completely inconsequential, inane conversation and its healing power.

Follow the lead of your colleagues--even some professors--and watch The OC with seriousness and abandon. (Me, not so much with The OC, but it takes all kinds).

“Look not long into the fire lest it invert thee, deaden thee, as it did me for a time,” says Ishmael in Moby Dick. I like law school, I like Ann Arbor, but I say let not the law deaden thee. You are not the law. And if you firmly believe that you are, then you are so irretrievably lost to humanity that I am surprised you are even reading this and not off communicating your ideas in a series of efficient clicks and buzzes (akin to the sonar of dolphins) to others of like disposition. Also I feel very sad for you. And the contempt, a little bit of contempt.

Yours,
Justin


Read more

Fox will not be satisfied until I hurt someone

When our nation is finally pulled under the rising waves of history and we sink further and further from the light above and deeper into the blue dark and finally settle on the abyssal plane that itself is a kind of nightmarish nothingness and serves as a wating place for the time before we are swallowed by the Leviathon of Oblivion, when all that finally happens and part of each of us breathes its sigh of relief because we just couldn't fucking take it anymore anyway. Well, it will have somehting to do with television. This is my firm belief. Fox, so they say, is cancelling "Arrested Development." Which is the only good show they've put on the air in the last 5 years. It's funny. And God help me, that simple statement is high praise. I mean have you seen "Stacked"? No, of course you haven't, nobody has, but that motherfucker is being renewed because Pam Anderson's giant fake tits are in it. I think she has lines too, I don't really know.
It is a truth universally to be acknowledged that people are only as stupid as the media that they consume. If you have some learning (I mean, like, a year of college, or a good high school education) and are given a chance to see or hear or read quality material, then you will appreciate it and your tastes and opinions will grow in sophistication. This is kind of the promise of the Enlightened Democracy. And of course those tastes and opinions will be different from each other from person to person. That's just the vibrant Agora of our marketplace of ideas. Blah, blah, blah. I think we can all agree that Pam Anderson is a blight on our nation and that "Arrested Development" is clever innovative and has a brilliant ensemble cast. Fuck Fox.


Read more

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Holy Diver...

You've been down too long in the midnight sea.
Oh what's becoming of me?


Read more

All About Yves

Alright. First, three great blog posts about about the French riots. From Juan Cole, Matthew Yglesias, and Crooked Timber. They all say, more or less, what I wanted to say about this. But the point about immigration I wanted to make is this:

First, immigration is an inherently exploitative process, the country to which one immigrates will exploit that person in the marketplace to get something for less. That's not a morally bad thing so long as it's an equal and common price that is paid one-time only. That's how it works and that's why countries let foreigners cross their borders and become citizens. It doesn't matter if you are a Honduran agricultural worker in California, or a Pakistani cardiologist in the U.K. You'll be mildly, or severly exploited as a cheaper, more maleable worker whether it's for $200 a week or $200,000 a year. The thing is, that you are promised that you or your children born in your new country will eventually be treated just like everybody else once you get passed the initial shit treatment as a price of entry. Think of it as national hazing.

Second, the crucial part in any society's immigration regime comes after the national hazing. Are the immigrant populations integrated into society, or are they forced to assimilate under pain of ostracization? For example, think of the way that Italians were integrated into the US in the 20th century. They never completely assimilated, but were allowed to retain some aspects of their cultural identity and--in the particualr case of 20th Century Italian immigrants--the larger society even adopted a few things (pasta, wine, oregano). Then they became part of American society. In France it seems like African immigrants are not integrated by the larger society, but are asked to assimilate into a sort of Frenchness that itself doesn't exist. When immigrant groups are exploited and then ghettoized until they promise to behave exactly like members of society that won't accept them enough for them to assimilate they will begin to see government and social institutions as illegitimate. And rightly so--if they've come to a republic expecting the opportunities inherent in an open society and yet are shut out and blamed for theur own lack of access to political and economic resources...we'll the situation in France is what happens. It's no accident that the first distubances in Clichy-sur-Bois were touched off by the tragic end to a police chase. It's things like police power and it's unequal excercise that are the source of the greivance here.


Read more

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Nila Van Wormer

I seen the stars fall from the sky. I seen all the lights fail away. I seen suns rise on three continents, and I seen sun sets on two. I had lives away from my friends, and others away from my family. I done things I ain't proud of and I had acheivements that I trumpet to the sky. I done the things that I ain't proud of that at the same time were part of who I am. And I saw a thing and heard a thing today at the Cleveland Clinic today that stuns me, shames me. My grandma Nila survived a thing that you and I don't even want to think about.
And God bless her she's better than any one of you or I. And Lord Jesus willing, she'll outlive anyone of us bastards. 'Cause she's not one of us bastards, she's better. So I give my prayers to her and ask yours for her. I saw a thing. And I heard a thing. But it's nothing...nothing to anything. I heard a thing and I saw a thing, and I reckon that you have too. So give your prayers or thoughts or whatever to who you know...to who you love. And I'll give my thoughts and prayers to you and who you love. Know that tragedy is yours and no other man's. And yet it is the way of the universe.

"Look not too long in the face of the fire, O man! Never dream with thy hand on the helm! Turn not thy back to the compass; accept the first hint of the hitching tiller; believe not the artificial fire, when its redness makes all things look ghastly. To-morrow, in the natural sun, the skies will be bright; those who glared like devils in the forking flames, the morn will show in far other, at least gentler, relief; the glorious, golden, glad sun, the only true lamp- all others but liars!"

Grandma Nila lives! And she shall always reign, there is no other. I love her more than anything. Grandma Nila, I love you.


Read more

Monday, November 07, 2005

Lawyers, Guns and Money...

...which, oddly enough, was the subject of last week's Criminal Procedure class. Now that I'm going to be a criminal defense attorney it rings true.

But all of that is ancillary to the true nature of this blog post. I just purchased A Quiet Normal Life the best of Warren Zevon, and "Lawyers, Guns and Money" is one of the songs on the compilation. Warren Zevon rocks! "Werewolves of London" alone is worth the purchase. My only complaint is the lack of "Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead." Which is both a good movie and an excellent song. So in honor of the late Warren Zevon I present to you the lyrics to "Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead."

I called up my friend LeRoy on the phone
I said, Buddy, I'm afraid to be alone
'Cause I got some weird ideas in my head
About things to do in Denver when you're dead

I was working on a steak the other day
And I saw Waddy in the Rattlesnake Cafe
Dressed in black, tossing back a shot of rye
Finding things to do in Denver when you die

You won't need a cab to find a priest
Maybe you should find a place to stay
Some place where they never change the sheets
And you just roll around Denver all day

LeRoy says there's something you should know
Not everybody has a place to go
And home is just a place to hang your head
And dream of things to do in Denver when you're dead

You won't need a cab to find a priest
Maybe you should find a place to stay
Some place where they never change the sheets
And you just roll around Denver all day
You just roll around Denver all day

Oh, gentle readers (both of you), there is nothing quite like sitting around and imagining the number of things that I shall do in Denver when I'm dead. Because when I go (I shall instruct my heirs that when I am near death they are to put me on a mesa on the Western Slope with a rifle, a fishing rod and three days of water), I'm so haunting Denver. I'll hang out at the Brown Palace with all the other ghosts and we'll have a great time scaring the presidents and popes and debutantes there. Just ask Baby Doe Tabor.


Read more

Now that I think of it...

My last post, below, is not very good. The thinking is muddled and I apologize. I'll post again on the French riots and immigration more specifically. It's important, I think, to conceive of immigration in three ways or stages (though they are not necessarily chronological, but merely emergent in the phenomenon): exploitation, integration, and assimilation. These three concepts are useful in conceptualizing the process of imigration and the cultural dialogue it produces in both the immigrant and dominant societies. All three are on display in the French riots. Of course I have no particular or specialized knowledge of the French issues, but I think that the analysis is applicable broadly across the experiences of First/Third World immigration populations. My thinking was developed in the instance US/Mexico immigration. More later.


Read more

A pluie dure is gonna fall.

So the French riots have expanded throughout the country, claimed at least one life, and even spilled over into Belgium. It's hardly the worst thing that could happen, and one needs to be careful not to over-estimate the severity of the riots. American cities were subjected to periodic severe race riots for the entire 20th Century. Oh, and that's what these are: race riots. I know that we in the West think we solved civil rights when the US ended legal segregation and the European countries pulled out of their last colonial possessions in the 1960s.
France has an "assimilation" policy for immigrants, both as official policy and, it seems, as a social convention. Which is to say that immigrants aren't to integrate themselves into French society, but instead to become "French." Which, it turns out, is nigh unto impossible when you aren't actually ethnically French--whatever that means. This is the country that fears that the Polish are comming to overrun their borders. I mean, the Polish, c'mon.
But immigration hysteria has always been a problem in the West (since Western countries even started allowing a semblence of open immigration). Around here, it's Latin America, in Europe is the Middle East and North Africa, in Britain for a while it was India and Pakistan. It's the same old scape-goat story and, more than that, it's the fact that in the eyes of a lot of people who are heavily invested in their nationality, immigrants of a different ethnic group can never participate in the construction of that identity.
At the end of a day, you can't have a bunch of people in your country--many of whom are second and third generation citizens--who you don't treat like citizens and then be suprised when they get all pissed and burn this basieur de mère down.


Read more

Saturday, November 05, 2005

You're the One? Meh.

I'm watching The Matrix Reloaded on TBS (which is a fair measure of how lame I am) and I was just watching the scene where Neo fights the giant mob of Agent Smiths (or is that Agents Smith?). I'll tell you what, it's kind of lame. I mean, yeah, all that kung fu and such, but seriously it's like twenty minutes of CGI that just isn't all that compelling and by like minute seven you're just kind of anxious for something new.

Remember when you first saw The Matrix? The first one? I remember the opening scene where Carrie Moss is running through the city and then lays a beating on some cops in that abandonded building, that was super sweet. I remember watching it in the theater and just thinking to myself, "Wow! That was fucking cool!" And I don't like action movies. And then the whole rest movie was great. It was a combo of good effects and kick ass action, and yet a strangley compelling, if somethimes necessarily facile, Buddhist/Gnostic/Joseph Campbell thing about heroism and myth and faith.

And then the sequels were just dumb. Like Agent Smith and all the silliness surrounding the clone fight. Honestly, twenty minutes of obviously CGI fighting followed by a bunch of ontological causality bullshit to put Heidegger to sleep which doesn't even make sense and is essentially an excuse to show off Monica Bellucci's bosom (it's a nice bosom, don't get me wrong, but the scene is silly).


Read more

Friday, November 04, 2005

Colorado



See, I was born in Denver, Colorado. And I was raised in the vicinties of Boulder, Golden, and Fort Collins, with detours in Durango, Idaho Springs, Gunison, Georgetown, Red Feather Lakes, and all points in between and yet within the bounds of the red soil of Colorado. And it is red, red like rusted blood of fallen gods. Which is, to my mind, God's Own Country, Colorado that is. It is, if you've never been, a place where a person can see such beauty that you shall never tire of it's attractions. I say so from three decades worth of experience. My heart never jumps so much as every time I see the other side of a 14,000 foot pass. Now, you may all know the song "Man of Constant Sorrow" from the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou, which is a wonderful movie. The orginal, featured Colorado, not Kentucky, as the place of origination for it's narator. And that song is a touchstone. A man can come from a place and leave it and hope never to look back in all his wanderings, but lord knows he'll be back. Because, you see, you must see, that Colorado is in your blood when you been born there. And it takes many travels to other countries and cities and locales to see. But then, if you ain't from Colorado, then you can't rightly understand the poetry in men's souls who have been birthed there. Merle Haggard sang a song that said that, "If God don't live in Colorado, then He must spend most of his time there." And he was pretty right about that. In the picture above, the plain in the middle ground is at 10,000 feet above sea level. I myself have never been happier than in the alpine meadows and long sightles prairies and warm red canyons and mesas of Colorado; I would go out on a limb and reckon that if you have had experience with it, that neither have you.


Read more

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Thank God

Via Ezra Klein (who is a superior blogger...far superior to my own self, you should read him) we get this beliefnet (which is a great site itself) interview with Rick Warren, the evangelical minister.
He's one of these guys that has a megachurch and a bestseller, but he hasn't become a James Dobson style douchebag and has apparently decided that the combination of influence and faith is the sign of a high calling to serve his fellow man--and not as a spring board to political influence and hating homos. As the man said:
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
It's really very nice to see him embrace those wonderful things about religion that keep my own faith from turning sour. That said, I have my own issues with megachurches, and I have no doubt that Pastor Warren and I would have giant disagreements about Chrisitianity, its expression and its place in the world--also, I think that his book, The Purpose Driven Life, sucks hard. Still, I say good on you Pastor Warren. If only becuase you reminded me of the good that religious folk can do--and of a line from my favorite hymn. We used to sing it at Mass at Nativity of Our Lord Parish when I was a lad and it comes from the passage from Matthew (25:34-40) that I quoted above: "Whatsoever you do for the least of my people, that you do unto me."


Read more

Department of unnecessary lengths

After this foolishness, we finally have a resolution which proves four things. 1) Tom DeLay believes in a complete absence of partisan influence when that partisan influence isn't his, otherwise game on. 2) Two can play at that game you dishonest motherfucker. 3) Politics has become, not more partisan, but more craven than ever before; and so now we've gone through a bunch of bullshit for what should have been the relatively simple matter of choosing a judge for a criminal matter after an indictment has been handed down. 4) Despite all this, even some Texas Republicans are honorable men who do credit to their profession from time to time (I'm looking at you Justice Jefferson, you sly dog).


Read more

For serious

Have I mentioned that Rancid is great? Because, and I really believe this, that needs to be made clear from time to time so we can all just take a few and go listen to Rancid. My favorite is Life Won't Wait, but that's just me.


Read more

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Roman style

This latest Rule 21 motion that forced a closed Senate to discuss the intelligence failures before the Iraq War is great. Why? Because it's old school parliamentary shit. Using rules of the assembly to force deliberative action isn't a "stunt", motherfucker it's what a senate is for. This is why we have a deliberative body...to deliberate. Using a rule isn't a bad thing, it's why the rule is there.


Read more

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

I hate it when...

...people use the expression "literally [something]" when it's not "literally" anything. Wolf Blitzer--who is now on CNN 19 hours a day--just referred to the "pandemonium" that has "literally" broken out on the Senate floor. Pandemonium means [ahem] literally "all demons" and refers to the capital of Hell, built at the suggestion of Mammon in Prardise Lost. So if pandemonium had literally broken out on the Senate floor, it would be a pretty sweet news story, but sadly all I saw was a press conference about a closed session iniated by the minority leader. See, saying pandemonium has broken out is perfectly fine, but it is a metaphor and so by definition it is not literal, but figurative. This is petty, I know, but it drives me nuts.

[UPDATE: Alright, well, coincidentally someone who is much smarter than I am has addressed this issue in Slate today. I think my point about Blitzer still stands--it was silly, and you shouldn't write or speak in a silly-sounding way if you wish to be taken seriously.]


Read more

Smilin' Tom Delay

Tom Delay got his wish today and got a different judge in his criminal trial in Texas. Apparently, the argument is that because the judge assigned the case has contributed to Democrats in the past, he cannot impartially preside over the trial of a Republican. If you can give me a reason why such a thing isn't obviously unconstitutional, then go ahead. Because the result here is that your political affiliation will become a factor in crimianl cases and we will just have to have two different legal systems. I know that the reasoning is that because the charges are about political contributions, political party is a legitimate factor, but that's bunk. Why wouldn't that smae reasoning exclude Republicans because of the chance that they would be imperssibly biased in favor of Delay. This is no different than saying that an accused criminal shouldn't have a former prosecutor as his judge because prosecutors will tend to side with their own. And we don't say that because the whole system would break down. You can't have political preference in your judges, especially in a place like Texas where judges are pratisan elected officials. You get the judge you get, and unless you can find a more compelling reason than his political party (which is totally off limits in America), then you're stuck with him.


Read more