They're dropping like flies redux

Danielle Braff and Vadim Karpinos. That would be Danielle Braff of the St. Ann's Braffs (though she's a lapsed St. Ann'ser).

Gentrification

The race(ist?) view: Ever since the white folks started moving in -- and they make more money -- the rent just keeps getting higher.

Succinct!

The Onion (ironically enough, a total symbol of gentrification, in my opinion) view: My landlord has no idea this apartment—hell, every apartment in this building—is undervalued. He could quadruple his profits by cutting my place in half. So I give him an extra 20 bucks a month hoping he gets the hint, but he just takes it out of the next month's rent.

Satirical!

Atlantic Yards: 7 hours of testimony, and several hundred still waiting to speak

Controversial much? Race and class!

Don't worry, Atlantic Yards Report's got the coverage.

Honeymoon observations 1: Aer Lingus is not run by the most competent people

I would have preferred it if the airline was in fact run by sentient basset hounds, as in the picture to the right. I would have blamed talking dogs less for the three-hour un-airconditioned in-plane delay*, the patchwork bag search before the Dublin to Shannon flight, the continually broken in-flight entertainment systems, and the constant shilling of various duty-free garbage in flight.

In conclusion, do not fly Aer Lingus. Unless, of course, they replace their staff with basset hounds.

*to fix the plane.

Brilliant

Anti-Borat hard-liners have already pulled the plug on borat.kz, Borat’s Kazakhstan-based Website. (In response, Borat claimed to “fully support my government’s decision to sue this Jew.”) (NY Magazine.)

On the downside, this has also caused my head to explode.

I like the trailer.

What did it feel like when China went communist?

I read this article and wonder.

The terms Islamic nationalism and pan-Islamism have a negative connotation in the West, where they are associated with fundamentalism and terrorism. But that is increasingly not the case in Egypt. Under the dual pressures of foreign military attacks in the region and a government widely viewed as corrupt and illegitimate, Islamic groups are seen by many people as incorruptible, disciplined, efficient and caring. A victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon is by extension a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

How's a 1920s-ish version read?

The terms Communist Party or communism have a negative connotation in the West, where they are associated with subversion and the end of society as we know it. But that is increasingly not the case in China. Under the dual pressures of foreign military attacks in the region and a government widely viewed as corrupt and illegitimate, communist groups are seen by many people as incorruptible, disciplined, efficient and caring. A victory for Lenin in Russia is by extension a victory for the Communist Part in China.

I guess one major difference is that communists seemed to keep their focus (read: terrorism) abroad, not in the United States, and fairly far from vital US interests (read: oil). And, while I suppose communists talked a big game about taking over the world (Comintern, anyone?), they seemed to operate rather more through the political process in the West (excepting Spain, where the political process broke down), and nothing really came of it. Other differences that I'm giving short shrift to: Race and ethnicity (giant); increased mobility of people, goods, and information; and the difference between a divinely inspired religion and an economic religion, so to speak (I miss rationality).

Man gets stuck in vat of chocolate

Co-workers, police and firefighters tried to free the man but couldn't get him loose until the chocolate was thinned out with cocoa butter. (NYT)

Mmm....cocoa butter....

Ass Backwards

If this article weren't so depressing, it'd be hilarious. I'll pull out the high(low?)lights.

President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.

I guess it's good that he's "concerned" and that he at least noticed that, hey, Iraq's a mess. But, really, it's 2006! Some concern might have been nice a few years ago. And as for the bolded section, gimme a break. It's like a bully whining that no one likes him.

“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

Again, it's nice that he's noticed that things aren't going so well, but why wasn't he doing this a few years ago. And what happened to being greeted with roses? Did he just realize that that didn't happen?

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

Oh my. I can't stand this man. Hey, maybe they don't appreciate the sacrifices because it hasn't really worked out for them--did you ever think of that? And maybe it's not just them--it's you, with the things you've said and not done (like effectively bring democracy and security to a country you invaded on trumped up, confrused premises) and the things you've done and not said (like rendition and secret prisons).

Participants said Mr. Bush appeared serious and engaged during the lunch, which lasted more than 90 minutes, as the experts went through a lengthy discussion of the political, ethnic, religious and security challenges in Iraq.

Whew. That's a relief.

One participant in the lunch, Carole A. O’Leary, a professor at American University who is also doing work in Iraq with a State Department grant, said Mr. Bush expressed the view that “the Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private.”

Erm, what's in it for them? Now that I think more about it, it would indeed be good if we got more credit for our good intentions. It would be good for Iraq, even. But intentions only get you so far, and an Iraqi government that's already likely unstable has no incentive to align itself more closely with an unpopular occupier.

Vali R. Nasr, an expert on Shia Islam, said the Pentagon meeting appeared to be an effort to give White House, Pentagon and State Department officials better insight into Iraq’s religious and ethnic mix.

“They wanted new insight, so they could better understand the arena in which they are making policy,” said Mr. Nasr, author of “The Shia Revival.”

This administration's incompetence and lack of preparation drives me crazy. You get that background information before you act, not 3.5 years after you've gone rampaging into a situation you don't understand. Ad hoc, improvisational policy based on a complete lack of knowledge of the surroundings practically begs to fail.

Trying desperately for optimism, I could say, "Better late than never." But, really, I think it's more "Too little, too late."

I just can't stand it. I want to do good. I want this to work out well. But with these people running things, I don't see how it can happen. And I don't see how it can happen after they've had 8 years to make a complete mess of everything.

TV I Missed

Lasagna Fest 2006 took precedence, but I kinda wish I'd seen last night's episode of Biography. It was about Ron Popeil.

Related Popeil content: In 2000, The New Yorker ran an article by Malcolm Gladwell about Ron Popeil. It's awesome.

On the relative fortunes of St. Ann's bloggers

Ben Adler: Matt Yglesias takes a swing at him. (Link provided by my brother.)

Plus

• Readers.
  

Minus

• Ouch.
  

Us: Filling a vital niche in the "long tail."

Plus

• Congeniality.
  

Minus

• That's a fancy way of saying "readers?"
  

"I personally apologize for the process. It is the most corrupt [development process] being done in America."

The process is for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. The speaker is state Sen. Velmanette Montgomery.

I don't know about "most," but it must be pretty damn close. Altogether too many New York State projects circumvent normal public review in a similar way, but Ratner's done a ridiculously good job of controlling the debate and cynically and effectively playing on racial and class divisions.

There's so much wrong with the proposal--it's too big, it's anti-urban (superblocks, towers in a park?!), it's anti-Brooklyn, the nasty rhetoric, the aforementioned corrupt process--I don't know where to start.

Actually, here and then here are good.

A toast to Josh and Tracy

As delivered Saturday, August 5.

I’d like to talk briefly about Josh Loh right now. When Josh asked me to be his best man, or “best dude,” as he’s taken to calling it, I said, yes, I’m touched, and all that. Then I asked, why me?

He said, well, you are kinda my oldest friend. And there’s the blog.

I should explain that. While we’ve been busy recently, him with better excuses than me, we occasionally write about any topic that piques our interest, then post on a joint blog that includes some other people. It’s usually about current events, history, and St. Ann’s grads. Essentially, it’s the same letter writing we’ve done back and forth since entering college, but the letters are usually short and always available for anyone to see. I think that’s probably about six people, but who cares.

And Josh’s right about the other point. He and I have been friends since the first time we met, way back when he was wearing that cowboy hat.

So, I recently went back through all the correspondence that I have between me and Josh. Sometimes we--mostly him--sound almost prescient or, at the very least, knowledgeable. Like any look back at oneself, it was shocking, fascinating, and a bit reassuring. I didn’t cringe as much as I feared.

Here are some key points of what I found. We started sending articles back and forth, annotated with our comments, really early on. And you may have noticed that Josh can be, well, a tad intense.

This intensity shows in his emails, which are often long, impassioned, and thoughtful, and sometimes just impassioned. In them, Josh is fervent, often on the same topics as now. But the writing also reminded me just how many different ideas Josh’s had about what he’d be doing, and just how wrong he’s been.

For instance, before going to college, he said he would bring a little lawn with him. Never happened.

Then, on December 13, 1999, he wrote, “Having accepted that my fate is to fail everything in life miserably....” No, not quite.

On September 17, 2002, he mentioned looking at the application to the Columbia School of Journalism. Then, on September 20, he said he was looking at the publishing field. Nope--ended up at law school.

On June 7, 2003, he stated with great assurance that he would spend the next year in a marketing internship in Massachusetts and in getting a certificate in management studies at Brown. For shame, Josh, for shame.

And, scattered throughout--though he was generally too clever to put this down in writing--there were references to joining ROTC, the National Guard, the Army, the Marines, and/or JAG. Hmm.

I’d forgotten some of these things, though not the Army.

But a portrait of flighty, inconsistent Josh would be far from true or fair. We generally wrote back and forth on similar subjects as we do now. (Now, though, there’s more about Zac Posen, whose name I confess I raise almost solely to get a rise out of Josh.) Josh retains a certain antipathy toward certain countries. We still think that it’s time to start extraterrestrial colonies. We still suggest the same books to each other. And we still know how things should be.

And here’re some other examples.

On or about March 24, 2003, in the middle of an IM conversation about the Iraq War (we both thought it was a bad idea--and I can prove it), at 11:28 and 41 seconds p.m., Josh wrote, “Tracy bought me a book entitled ‘Every Man Will Do His Duty: An Anthology of Firsthand Accounts from the Age of Nelson.’ I think I'm going to marry her.”

When I asked if the present was because of his birthday, he replied, “No, just because. We seem to get each other stuff a lot.” Then we got back onto Iraq.

And a bit less than a year later, on March 2, 2004, Josh wrote to me, “It’s really surprising what happens when you do hit it off with someone, and I wish someone had told me before now.”

And, a bit less than a year later than that, on February 21, 2005, Josh reported online that he was engaged.

Which brings me back to the present.

The emails certainly bear out Josh’s intensity, as for any perceived inconsistency, bah, hobgoblin, little minds, and all that. Really, I’m impressed with how Josh’s finest qualities--his drive, his wit, his intelligence, his fierce friendship--have shone through throughout. They’re things to aspire to.

Plus, I overlooked the big consistency, to which he’s dedicated all the attributes I could ever think of to describe him, and then some--Tracy. And, from the time I’ve spent with them, I know she’s done exactly the same right back at him. Perhaps with a bit more patience or something.

Well, I think it’s obvious that they love each other an awful, awful lot and make each other absurdly happy. I’m so glad of that and happy for them--we should all be so fortunate--and I can’t figure out how to say anything about the two of them beyond that without sounding incredibly trite or corny, so I’ll just ask you to help me out.

Please join me in a toast to Josh and Tracy, to their good health and happiness.

Matawan's got nothing

Jaws is nothing. The Matawan man-eater/Jersey Shore shark is nothing.

The Hudson River has a manatee now.

A free verse open poem to the pedestrian I encountered today

Crazy old lady,
I am sorry if I
Misinterpreted your wave
As permission to keep driving
Rather than a demand
To let you cross the street
But you were ambiguous.
I would have apologized
For I am not vindictive (unduly)
But after you struck my car
With your clenched and knobbly fist
I hope you know your baleful glare
Provoked only confused laughter
I hope it ruined your day
You withered harridan.

Sigh

Some people don't know when to quit. Do Hezbollah rockets that overshoot their targets and hit Palestinian territory dismay the Palestinians?

The Fatah member related that local residents cheered when they heard the rocket fall and saw the resulting flames. “Even if it were to fall on our heads, it wouldn’t have spoiled our joy. All of us here are praying for Hizbullah’s success and victory," he said.

No, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm pretty sure that if it fell on your head it would have ruined your day, Mr. Fatah spokesman.

On reasonableness

I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but surely, surely it is still possible to find and support a just cause without also supporting the early release of convicted felons. A number of these so-called movements have sprung up from time to time. Sometimes, the line between calls for the retrial of genuinely innocent individuals and the kind of advocacy at issue here blurs. However, the dividing line is usually the demand for what amounts to some indiscriminate kind of judicial or legislative nullification of the verdict, placing the burden of proof on the government to show that its trial process was fair. Regrettably for those involved in such causes, release of prisoners based on popular appeal went out with Pontius Pilate.

My personal distaste for movements such as Free Mumia, Free Jeff Luers and the Tookie Wilson affair is founded upon a general disapprobation of the effect of cause celebres on any movement. They are splashy, they generate a significant amount of interest--but it is often an ultimately counterproductive type of interest; a juvenile, hysterical type of interest that ultimately obfuscates the real and legitimate sources of complaint and the case for legal reform.

For example, take Jeff Luers. So far, I find Mr. Luers's case for release to be the most unconvincing yet. Not even Mr. Luers's supporters deny that he set fire to three SUVs, or that he was properly convicted. No, what Mr. Luers's supporters find objectionable is the length of the sentence; a sentence that, while perhaps unusually lengthy, is still well within the sentencing guidelines for three acts of arson.

No justice system can function where sentencing decisions are driven by the will of the mob. Indeed, I find it pathetic that, having made his statement, Mr. Luers now seeks to avoid the consequences of his actions. One cannot hide behind wealth and privilege forever, seeking the status of a so-called political prisoner. Martin Luther King and Aung San Suu Kyi; these were or still are actual political prisoners imprisoned by their governments for their beliefs alone: that one moment of time is wasted upon this arsonist by those who could be concerned about the plight of actual political prisoners deeply angers me. That Mr. Luers receives a surfeit of attention because of his self-proclaimed status as an environmental activist while the sentencing process of thousands of other felons goes unexamined is enraging. That more people know about Jeff Luers than the violation of due process that Elias Fishburne IV endured should shame us. That contributions are solicited in his name

Legal costs for Jeff's appeals will be very expensive and help is greatly needed. Please send checks and money orders made out to Free's Defense Fund and send them to Free's Defense Fund, POB 3, Eugene, OR 97440. You can also click the button below to make an online credit card donation.

...

We are hoping that this appeal will take 10-12 years off his sentence.

for such a result, while hundreds of thousands of felons in the United States go unrepresented after their first appeal of right raises a deep chord of disgust in me. Hundreds of thousands of felons who did not pick an attractive cause, or had the good fortune to be an attractive young white man, or have the opportunity for freedom of mobility and education that Jeff Luers seemingly had. What supporters of Mr. Luers protest is, fundamentally, that he has received no special privileges from the American justice system; that whether fair or unfair, the process afforded Mr. Luers did not differ from that afforded to any other American accused of a felony in the State of Oregon. The oppressive delays between trial and appeal, the prison conditions, the use of solitary confinement--none of these things are unique to Mr. Luers, and none of them will cease with his release. The law is not a respecter of persons. It should not respect Mr. Luers, or his case.

A terrifying vision of things to come?

This person went to Harvard Law. I'm left-handed too. The similarities are uncanny.

I say without any fear of exaggeration: This is the single greatest quotation of all time:

I am grateful that I have the luxury to follow my dreams, which, of course, I am still trying to figure out what they are, and not work at some job that I hate because I need to support myself.

This is what I mean about the goddamned MBE

Two examples, one not so bad, one that makes me bleed at the eyes. I've decided to annotate the second so you can get a better feel for my thought process in... studying these questions.

1) Congress enacted a law requiring all civil service employees to retire at age 75, except when such employees are employed by the armed services. Civil service employees of the armed services are required to retire at age 65. Portman is an employee of the Department of the Armyl he is 65 years old. He files suit in the federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that would prevent the Army from requiring him to retire before age 75.

Portman's strongest argument in support of his contention that the statute's provisions regarding civil service employees of the armed services are invalid is that this provision:

A) Denies him the privileges and immunities of national citizenship.

B) Denies him a property right without just compensation

C) Is invidious discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment

D) Is not within the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8.

If you picked the right answer, you are, first and foremost, a more careful reader than I am. This is a classic example of a MBE question that actually penalizes you for broad knowledge of the law. If you picked B) because the other answers seemed like the plaintiff wouldn't recover, you were right... but completely wrong by the lights of the MBE. The correct answer is C, even though the standard of review is rational basis. Why is the correct answer C? Because the MBE creators know that BarBri tells you that age discrimination is not a suspect class and receives rational basis review, and hope that you'll miss the fact that this is one of the few times rational basis review might actually apply... just not a case that would ever actually occur, or a case that bears any reasonable relation to any case you learned about in law school.

2) In July of last summer, George, a grape grower, contracted with Walter's Winer to deliver "500 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes grown on my ranch Grapeacre [Cute.] in Grape County [Too cute]." The price was to be $1000 per ton and delivery was to be on or before September 15. In August of the same year, George entered into an identical contract with Vinnie's Vintner Co. to sell 300 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. [Okay. This looks like a great grape contract. Was it in writing, though? Statute of frauds?]

George completed his harvest by September 10 and had 800 tons of premium quality grapes. On September 11th, an unexpected rain ruined 400 tons [it always goddamn does], and George notified Walter and Vinnie on that day that he would only be able to deliver 250 tons to Walter and 150 tons to Vinnie [Breach? Not yet]. On September 14th, Vinnie purchased an additional 150 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes from Godfrey, one of several other available sources for premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes [Reliance! This is going to be a question about remedies]. These grapes along with the 150 tons from George gave Vinnie the 300 tons he needed.

On September 15, what is Walter Winery's legal position with regard to George's failure to deliver the 500 tons of grapes required by his contract? [Perfect tender rule! No requirements contract! Seller bears the risk of loss until delivery! He's in breach!]

A) If Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter will have the right to refuse to accept the 250 tons of grapes [Looking good...] but will have no cause of action for damages against George. [Huh? Well, maybe...]

B) Even if Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter must accept the 250 tons of grapes and will have no cause of action for damages against George. [Totally bogus.]

C) Since Vinnie's purchase establishes that it is possible for George to perform by obtaining additional grapes from other available sources, Walter may accept the 250 tons from George and recover damages for George's failure to deliver the balance of the amount specified by the contract. [Dodgy. Acceptance and suit?]

D) Since George's contract was Walter was entered into before his contract with Vinnie, George is bound to deliver the entirety of his grape crop to Walter. [No class I have taken in law school has dealt with the issue of priority of fruit debt. I guess I'm out of luck.]

Ready? It's excused by failure of a presupposed condition, i.e. that the crop wouldn't fail. I gues people who deal with farmers deserve what they get. "A crop failure," the book tells us, "resulting from an unexpected cause excuses a farmer's obligation to deliver the full amount as long as he makes a fair and reasonable allocation among his buyers. George has done this by allocating pro rata between Walter and Vinnie. Nevertheless, under UCC 2-616 the buyer may either accept the proposed modification or terminate the contract. Thus, B is wrong. C is wrong because even though alternative sources are available, George is not obligated to use them because the contract was tied to a designated parcel of land --"My [George's] ranch." D is wrong becuase it is contrary to the provision of UCC section 2-615, which permits the farmer to make an allocation." Which leaves us with the question: just how unexpected is an "unexpected rain" causing crop failure? Why, by God, it seems like it happens every year in California, and probably more generally every year wherever grapes are goddamn well grown. You'd think that someone would have found some sort of legal solution. No? The UCC is the best you can do? It costs me a point?

If I ever meet a member of the Board of Bar Examiners, I will walk away quickly and quietly, lest I be overcome and tort them. Because this is meaningless.

Pro rata allocation of grapes? Give me anarchy; at least I'll die a clean death, rifle in hand.

A Speck of Light in an Otherwise Dreary World

Bar exam got you down? Are you scared of your uncertain future and feel like blackness looms on the horizon?

Fear not, because in March of 2007, there will be a new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie!

Here's a link to the trailer.

Also

Just when you think the world is out of good super villains--the People's Republic of China to the rescue!