A pathetic man, thrown under a bus

Ah, the saga of Mr. Frey continues. I would have so much more fun with this but I'm just superstitious enough to maintain a healthy concern that schadenfreud might invoke one of those ironic penalties that one usually gets for hubris. So, Larry King just finished interrogating his guests as to whether they understood that "junkies lie." I really wish he could have asked Oprah that question, even in a purely rhetorical sense. I think Oprah realized the laughable obviousness of the situation. After the wonderfully snarky Smoking Gun report, the only plausible conclusion was that a junky pulled a fast one on us. The longer it takes to wrap one's head around that, the dumber one appears. Or maybe it's just that I have an unhealthy level of cynicism that even Oprah wouldn't forgive.

In praise of self-indulgent law professors

I don't know how they do things at your law school but around here the professors take their time producing grades. If my rather hazy memory serves me, I sat for an exam over one month ago and I still haven't heard any results. Before anyone suggests that the poor overworked professor has 75 other exams to grade, let me point out that my law school is very prestigious and most classes are very small. The only large class saw its professor complete grading quite some time ago. (Prof. [X], you're the greatest. I apologize for my failure to inquire about your health but I hope that evidence of your recovery may soon grace court rooms throughout the Ninth Circuit.)

Heretofore, I fervently believed that "procrastibation" (thanks for the expression, [N]) was the cure for any particularly dull legal task. Nowadays, I'm ever-so-slightly resentful of folks taking their time. After slaving nonstop for 4 months in at least two of the classes which I actually took for a grade, I'd appreciate some feedback that doesn't require me to "explain" myself. There is a bright side to this Dantean limbo: the students get a nice cooling off period during which we reflect on our high-paying jobs, nice suits and pleasant friends before being reminded that we were supposed to have learned something.

Don't get me wrong; we wouldn't be here were we not intellectuals of the highest order with a deep and abiding interest in tackling abstract issues that both put normal people to sleep and form the elementary fibers of the nation's tapestry. I have greater concerns than 1700-pages of disorganization posing as a casebook. So, I'm not going to begrudge the profs taking their time and going on vacating before reading some very dull exams (by which I mean our responses, not the very stimulating questions presented). Frankly, I'm as self-indulgent as any of the professors and since some people are under the impression that knowledge is power, I will simply point out that modern law is open source warfare. That is to say, obsessive instant messaging and web surfing during class makes one a better lawyer. Don't laugh at us; while you're "paying attention," we're practicing.

Munich

Munich is way, way too much like Shogun Assassin. Anyone who remembers the opening monologue from the latter probably knows what I'm getting at. Cultural illiterates may recall some choice lines from an unseen video in the final act of Kill Bill Vol. 2. Frankly, I'd like to see Shogun Assassin right now, but there are no decent foreign/indie video stores in this wasteland. We're in small town mode right now and do I ever feel like Johnny-come-lately for not seeing Munich sooner. Despite over-wraught tropes of the Assassin's reluctance, I don't see anyreason to disabuse folks of the notion that this is Spielberg's best film. It should also be required viewing for those who think that psychological damage doesn't follow from too much existential rambling and perceived moral failings. ("No, Sally, drugs won't do that to you; that's what happens when you sell your soul to the nearest Hegelian Nation-State.")

My real attraction to this film is the starkness of the Munich attacks which Spielberg uses to maximum effect by spreading it throughout the film and thus rehabilitating dull scenes and creating some sense of climax in the final act. I was a mere child when I first learned of the attacks in one of those History Channel specials which I thoroughly misunderstood while camped out on the bed of my parents' hotel room in 1988. I distinctly remember seeing the hollow eye-sockets of one of the terrorists as he leaned out the window of the Olympic complex and wondering if he was not a grotesque corpse being manipulated by an even more sinister character that the TV cameras wouldn't let us see.

This creates a comforting parallel to the various shootings and bombings throughout Western Europe and we're treated to some astoundingly profound dialogue suggesting the audience confront the following propositions:

1. Explosions and shootings are particularly disturbing if they happen in rich neighborhoods as opposed to deserts.
2. The Middle East is mostly composed of deserts.
3. The only violence one should be disturbed by will result in a dead prostitute in an open housecoat.

addendum non sequitur
Okay, time to listen to some Libertines. Also, James Frey is a very pathetic man. My memoirs are gonna be published as "fiction." No legitimate claims of breached confidence and the guilty parties will never wash the stench of suspicion from their sticky fingers.

The Physiognomy of the Hard-ass Judge

Several months ago I was attending oral arguments at the Appellate Division in San Mateo County's Superior Court. The panel was peopled with three fellows who looked sort of like this.

At one point in the docket they caught a fresh-faced prosecutor with a brit-pop haircut implying certain things about the trial record which were not, strictly speaking, actually there. The rage was so palpable, I feared they would have him clapped in irons.

As a reference for assorted lawyers and anyone who must deal with the legal system, someone should catalogue the features characteristic of the hard-ass judge so that those putting in an appearance can tell at a glance how much they can get away with. I have no knowledge of the above jurist's attitudes, but we should note first the beard. This is the sign of a man familiar with authority and directing others to apply physical force if necessary. Note also the prominent forehead which suggests you should assume him to be at least two-thirds as smart as you. We'll return to this issue periodically.

Charlie and Rose

Wednesday and Thursday consisted of a pleasant evening of dinner, clubbing, some conversation, and huge quantities of alcohol followed closely by fearful flashes of a Hieronymus Bosch future alternating with unconsciousness and vaguely sexual sounds from my compatriots. So it wasn't surprising that sometime after a bracing drive back down the Peninsula, I suddenly found myself watching David Brooks and Charlie Rose try to finish one another's sentences.

David Brooks is probably not my favorite of the NYT columnists but I can't verify that because I'm too cheap to subscribe. At any rate, I was pleasantly surprised by his observations which only occasionally increased my annoyance with conservatives.

Of greatest interest were Brook's comments on the true intellectual attitudes of the Bush administration on foreign policy and specifically the Iraq situation. Since I can hardly suffer a fool who doesn't watch Charlie Rose, we'll briefly dispense with the details; suffice it to say, Bush & Co. are smart, serious and very engaged while Cheney & Co. are a bit "hard to read."

While this frustrates my party line spiel about how we're ruled by anti-intellectual lay-abouts, it also forces me to make a more cultural criticism, even less likely to carry water with those who appreciate that folksy charm. Bush's sense of relevant history roughly extends to about the year 2008, concerns only him and has no place for the past. He's not a conservative, neither is he stupid. If Brooks is correct, the GOP wasn't joking about Bush doing serious on-the-job training back in 2001. The result is that these gentlemen have taught themselves a great deal about the current political calculus in the relevant region. They know things are going badly, appreciate that fact and are willing to spare no expense to solve the problem while disabusing us of any notions about just going home. This obsession with "facts on the ground" is great for short term tactics in a cultural vacuum but terrible when everyone else uses the specter of a cultural assault as the primary motivator.

A professional, volunteer military whose members actually follow orders will never compete numerically with irregulars convinced that their way of life is under assault; the former will, at best, fight for their buddies. The point is that we're going to lose this war after winning every single battle (with the exception of a very unfortunate incident in lower Manhattan which caught me totally unawares). These people clearly are only interested in what other cultures have to offer us by way of exploitable markets and credible threats. There was never any abstract curiosity and as a result no useful information which might have yielded the perspective necessary to forming a strategy of apparent coherence lasting more than one year. Far be it from me to suggest government by academics, but we should have them around as they often make charming dinner companions, love wine and late night conversations and tend to understand the big picture. They also don't like people who pretend to be stupid; Clinton understood this. I'm sure Bush works very hard during the day, but he really should stay up later and learn to drink responsibly.

The other likeable moment from Brooks was where he praised Sam Alito as a modest fellow with great self-respect but no need for accolade, similar to Bush, but without a need to act dumb. (Even working stiffs from Jersey want their lawya*s sma*t.) While my parents were being counter-culture Jesus Freaks and not joining the army, these guys were quietly supporting The Man, learning his game and not joining the army. Now my parents make me borrow money for school while these guys work at odd jobs here and there. Those folks from the '60s protest culture who did make it to government (Biden and Kennedy, etc.) are intellectual show-offs, always hated by the folks from Sam Alito's old Jersey neighborhood and smart rich kids who appreciate their place in the world. Never mind that Democrats run all the good schools and want to give the neighborhood folks healthcare; I regretfully concede that this whole thing is about personality.

The very very best news from Brooks: demographics for evangelical Christians are flat while secularists are multiplying as if they actually enjoyed heterosexual intercourse. The secularist movement is rockin', vibrant and freshly organized. University v. Church, Whole Foods v. Wal-Mart, etc. We might out-earn and out-live them but we've got 20 years tops before they start setting off bombs and shooting our doctors. Oh, wait those were the '90s.

Wow, Charlie Rose sure has some great guests on his show; afterwards I watched an episode of Entourage and decided that a nose job is really quite reasonable.

In other news, someone determined that it's difficult to tell what something is/was after you blow it up.

(Scalito) In a few hours...

this chap Alito will start a meteoric arc towards the coveted jumpseat on the Supreme Court. I guess he's going to replace someone only slightly more qualified than himself. Despite my liberal tendencies, I just can't muster any real optimism about defeating this fellow. The best I can do is recall accusing Judge Alito of being a cheap imitation of J. Antonin Scalia in the course of delivering a very drunken tirade to someone's video camera following an after-school party. J. Scalia is very smart and very scary. For those who value privacy and personal autonomy (the only things that really separate the yoke of our government from that of say, Saudi Arabia), Scalia's words pour like molten lead into one's ear. Alito's arguments, on the other hand, will sound in the register of a honeyed potion laced with hemlock. I can't doubt that every Democrat on the judiciary would be taken in were it not for Alito's long record of outrageous dissenting opinions. What's worse is that Mr. Alito's naturally affable demeanor and knack for diplomacy will win him lots of friends on the Court and he will almost certainly surpass Scalia in shaping some very ugly precedents.

Right after that, I demurred from a bong hit...And shyly asked if anyone in the house had "psychostimulants."

This place (that is, the intellectual landscape of the US legal system) has been going to the dogs at an alarming rate ever since I started paying attention back in '96ish. The best historical parallel we might draw is from Ronald Smye's description of the situation in Rome prior to Caesar's rise to prominence: "For revenge and as an example to deter posterity from raising dissension at Rome, Sulla outlawed his adversaries, confiscated their property and deprived their descendants of all political rights." For purposes of clarification, I'm not suggesting that any one Republican is tough enough to bear comparison to Sulla but I'm sure that between Cheney and whoever happens to be in charge of the whole redistricting fiasco (plus any complicit federal judges who ruled the exercise "constitutional"), they've got their bases covered.

inauguration

good morning.